A Response to 'Considering Difference'

Eric over at Eric Stoller's Blog asked me to comment on a recent post/incident. Given the length of my response, I've decided to respond with a post rather than a comment. Go here for the post that inspired this.

First, a question: By 'outing' did Eric mean telling someone at Iowa State about Radar's writings? Maybe I missed it, but that wasn't clear to me. It's also possible - probable, even - that Radar has been effectively outed; given the information that Eric did post, I could probably follow the trail and out them myself at this point.

Second, wow. Just wow.

I agree with a lot of what's been said already in the comments to the post, but I want to point out one thing, something that Tanya said:

"What is unfortunate here is that Radar thinks he must be anonymous because of the liberal bias in academia not because his behavior as a student affairs professional is wrong."

I think this gets at something important here, namely an idea that all viewpoints are valid perhaps even regardless of context or factual accuracy. That is, Radar (obviously) believes that their personal views are equally valid when held up to anyone else's, especially yours, Eric. On the one hand, I want to agree with him; that's what my lefty social justice background tells me: Do not invalidate someone else's experiences. This leads to marginalization, oppression, etc.

However, I am concerned (and this is a point I think needs made in a larger context than just this case) that there is a serious miscommunication here, perhaps intentional, perhaps not. What I see is lefty folks challenging Radar's beliefs about LGBT folks, not Radar's identity.

(I know, I know - are those even separate? Can we separate them? How? If we can't, then you might as well discard the rest of this post.)

I hope it goes without saying that it's OK to challenge someone's beliefs. Yes, it depends on context, but if we've got any hope left for either an intellectual life and/or positive social change, then I think we've got to believe that it's OK to question the factual basis (and moral basis, for that matter) of the beliefs of other people. If you are not sure this is OK, I have one word for you: Iraq.

Therefore, I can say "Radar, your belief that LGBT folks' lifestyles is immoral is incorrect because its based on false assumptions and/or reasoning." However, I cannot say "Radar, your beliefs make you a bad person." I worry that somewhere those two sentiments get mixed up.

I also worry that sometimes conservative folks don't get the whole debate around difference and/or diversity (probably due to some very, very different underlying assumptions about human nature - see Radar's comment on personal responsibility and how leftists 'don't believe in it' or something - but that's another post), and as a result get mad when their beliefs are challenged, precisely because it's seen as an attack on identity, something us 'liberals' aren't supposed to do. So leftists get called hypocrites based on a misunderstanding, one that allows conservatives to declare victory in their own minds.

Getting back to the question at hand, I am inclined to 'out' Radar as well, on the grounds that his personal beliefs seem to contradict the requirements of his job. This reminds me of some recent news stories I've read in which pharmacists refuse to hand out birth control, emergency contraception, the morning after pill, etc. based on their personal beliefs. My take on that is that those folks are not doing their jobs, and should leave the pharmacy business if they refuse to fulfill the requirements of the job. I feel the same way about Radar; ergo, I think outing that person to their boss(es) is probably ethical, since Radar has (tacitly?) admitted to being unable to do the job at hand.

Whew.

Thoughts?