Yesterday I reported how the Dean of Widener Law School, Linda Ammons, had sentenced conservative law professor Lawrence Connell to a psychiatric evaluation and “anger management” therapy:
Professor Connell will comply with all conditions and recommendations issued by the psychiatrist/psychologist, including, without limitation, appropriate counseling and anger management, prior to the lifting of the suspension and his return to teaching duties.
Professor Connell’s alleged offense which necessitated this demeaning precondition was that Connell had circulated an email to students defending himself against accusations of racism and sexism by two female students, accusations which were false and defamatory and ultimately rejected by the faculty committee which examined the evidence.
So defending oneself against potentially career-ending false accusaitons is a sign of mental illness, and requires “anger management” therapy, at least in the eyes of Dean Ammons. Curiously, there is no indication that the female students who made the false accusations — and whose conduct in classes was disruptive and confrontational — will have similar preconditions placed on their continued matriculation at Widener Law School.
The demand for “anger management” counseling seemed familiar. Where had I heard that recently. Ah yes, this is what came to mind (emphasis mine):
During the Wednesday meeting, [Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh] Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether [Justice David] Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.
How convenient is the use of the “anger management” paradigm. No matter how outrageous the conduct of the female students in making false accusations, or of Dean Ammons in facilitating the accusations, it was the male conservative law professor who had the anger management problem. No matter how outrageous the conduct of Justice Bradley in provoking a confrontation, it was the conservative male jurist who needed anger management therapy.
The concept of “anger management” is valid; certainly there are people who need to learn how to control their tempers. But the demand for anger management therapy also is subject to abuse.
The way in which the demand was made by Dean Ammons and Justice Bradley played on stereotypes that women always are the victims, and when used against conservative men, the charge is particularly powerful because it feeds into feminist theology which is the controlling paradigm in much of academia and discrimination law.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s the typical, Alinsky attack against the white male, applying Rule 13: if there is no way to throw down the race card, or the sexist card (which arguably is not as powerful these days), you throw the “angry white man” card down. You see, all white males are aggressive, war-mongering, Neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, mysogynist balls of pent up hostility suppressing their Angry ANGER, D4MMIT!!!
See?! 😉 Easily explained.
Although, if the male involved was African-American, throwing down the “anger management” card would be countered by throwing down the race card, because to say a black male needs anger management is stereotyping and therefore raaaaacist. Or something.
This card game business is truly dizzying. As is the “logic” of liberals (an oxymoron, I know).
Why do we not see the man’s colleagues manning the barricades? I would have thought that such solidarity would be de rigeur in centers of learning; after all, that’s what they teach, I’m told – to show “people power”, to excoriate management, to break some stuff and to employ tactically all trade-union taught modes of behavior. Or don’t we get beyond book-learnin’?
You don’t see other professors at Widner sticking their neck out to defend Prof Connell for two reasons:
1.) the Liberal leaners want to see him gone, and they don’t care how it happens, because he’s “polluting” the skulls full of mush that they’re trying to fill with ideas that it’s always “big corporations” fault, and “the little guy (or lady) is always the victim.”
2.) The Centerists and few other Conservative Professors have gotten the message LOUD AND CLEAR/b>, that if they defend Connell, that they will have a similar incident in their OWN classrooms, have their professional reputation dragged through the mud, and then even if they win, the students won’t be punished, but the Professor WILL be questioned about his or her intellectual competence or emotional stability thus damaging the Professors yet further. It’s PURELY retaliatory in nature, but it will be so hard prove that the Dean will be able to “skate by” and by filing a lawsuit to prove the retaliation, Widner Law School itself will file a counter suit claiming retaliation of its own, costing the Professor FURTHER time, money and reputation.
Does anybody know where the case is against the two students that Prof. Connell’s attorney served? I would assume he sued them for Slander and possibly Libel, and I think that he’s got a decent retaliation case against Widner Law School itself for retaliation based on the bogus “retaliation” finding in their report. At this point, I think Prof. Connell should be taking his case directly to the public again, as that’s probably what allowed him to win in the “grievance” process in the first place, by shining a light on the shady “back room” dealings trying desparately to oust him. Calling out the Board of Widner Law School for installing such an unstable and out of control Dean with such little regard for academic freedom in her own institution that she feels it necessary to silence her own teachers with threats of “psychological counseling” when they defend their reputation from completely FALSE accusations, I think would resonate in the media quite well. Maybe do something like publicly DEMAND that the Board of Widner Law School suspend the DEAN for the same period and require the same “punishment” for her “rush to judgment” and shoddy handling of the entire conflict.
Just my thoughts.
Whoops! Missed a Close tag. Sorry about the bolding….
The missed tag was really a subconscious cry for help. You can obtain intensive therapy at the Alec Baldwin Clinic for Mental Health and Anger Management.
My lame attempt at snark aside, the climate at many colleges and universities is downright totalitarian. Dissent is not permitted, as you noted. Anyone who dares to think differently knows they face the prospect of severe professional punishment – firing, false accusations, destroyed reputation.
I teach mathematics and engineering at a Texas community college. Being in one of the so-called hard sciences I manage to escape the worst of today’s politically-intolerant atmosphere (thank God I am not teaching humanities or social science!). Yet I never, repeat never let on that I hold non-progressive political views. One mistake – letting the wrong person know I do not agree with this-or-that progressive opinion – and my career would be toast.
Linked you up yesterday with commentary. This story really pisses me off: ‘Widener’s Dean Linda Ammons Goes After Law School Professor Lawrence Connell’.
This is typical of the academy. I was once asked to take one of their absurd classes in recompense for something I’d not done and for which I had proof that my accuser was making a false charge. The academy didn’t care. I stated boldly that I had no intention of complying because compliance would signify guilt.
The Janet Daley column from the UK Telegraph making such a splash today touches on this. It ends:
“The hardest obstacle to overcome will be the idea that anyone who challenges the prevailing consensus of the past 50 years is irrational and irresponsible. That is what is being said about the Tea Partiers. In fact, what is irrational and irresponsible is the assumption that we can go on as we are.”
Doublespeak speaks louder than actions.
LukeHandCool (who doesn’t have a temper … but who needs constant mirth management)
It may be liberal women vs conservative men or it may just be liberal women desirous of gelding all men who disagree with them on anything I think they may be hiding behind demands for “civility” and the like to avoid confrontations in which they lose on the merits.
Well, I just posted on Janet Daley, LOL! Things are coming to a head! ‘A Capitalist Economy Can’t Support a Socialist Welfare State’.
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In 1964, a group of psychiatrists published an article days before the election in which they pronounced Barry Goldwater “psychologically unfit” to be President. The Soviet Union routinely subjected dissidents to imprisonment, torture and murder, claiming that it was actually “modern psychiatric science”. The media uncritically accepted these lies and many others when it suited their political purposes.
Another crazy Tea Partier…get out the anger management and commitment papers. The JourNolist 2.0 has it’s talking point.
http://twitpic.com/62jq7z
[…] doozies for them.In this administration, the gears of progress…umm…mesh really well.Why are progressive women such bullies? And why can’t they ever take what they so eagerly dish out?This is the time of year when we […]