More on the Radar-Eric Thing

This is just too long to post as a comment to the below post, so it gets a whole post to itself.

Eric, apologies for the mislabeling - somewhere along the line I started generalizing the argument a bit. I also tend to use the 'lefty' identity very, very broadly, often to the detriment of accuracy.

Also, when I put the words leftists, lefty or liberals in single quotes, it is usually a sign of mild mockery of the way the word is used. I don't really like those terms, but they are so commonly used it's hard to get away from them.

A question: How does Eric know that the LGBT lifestyle doesn't affect Radar's existence? I've heard this claim made in defense of equality often, but I've never heard any sort of backing for it. The only reason I even bring it up is that when it's phrased in the way Eric did above, it sounds like Radar is being told what their experience is or should be, another huge social justice no-no. So I'd appreciate some clarification on that one.

And just to make it worse, compare these two examples: Person A is freaked out by homosexuality, and shudders at the idea of two gay men having sex, even in the privacy of their own home. Person B shudders at the though of a man beating a woman in the privacy of their home. What is it that allows us to reach into the home in the case of Person B and tell them what they're doing is wrong, when we can't do the same for Person A? Note: I am not endorsing the legitimacy of either case here, just wondering about the moral or ethical or metaphysical mechanism we use in one case but not in the other and what the difference is.

On to Radar's comment about the connection between beliefs, ideology, and identity.

I think that one's ideology - in this case conservative - can be part of one's identity. I think that's right, as Radar states (for some underlying epistemological reasons which I may or may not explain later), but I also think it's OK to challenge specific parts of that ideology, and that this does not necessarily constitute delegitimizing one's identity. Radar's stance on LGBT folks is a belief or set of beliefs, after all, and challenging someone's beliefs is an essential part of discourse, especially in the academic/intellectual world. So upon further consideration, I don't think it's hypocritical or conflicted at all to challenge a person's beliefs, even when those beliefs are part of what makes up their identity. However, the method of challenging beliefs and the particular beliefs challenged does play a role here, as does the difference between challenging beliefs and challenging actions.

Re: What appears to be Radar's assumption that I might disapprove of their lifestyle, um, no. I might disapprove of things like publicly taunting LGBT folks, or treating them poorly, but those are specific actions, if I somehow knew Radar did them, which I don't (and have no reason to think they do). So no, I don't disapprove of Radar's lifestyle - I don't even know what it is! Please don't conflate an entire 'lifestyle' with a few 'opinions'. They are very different things. Also, please don't conflate my disliking of people who are publicly bigots with anything Radar has done. Last time I checked, I have no idea what s/he *does* beyond work in academia and inhabit the Internet.

Finally, Radar, you're welcome to comment here all you want. Very welcome, in fact.

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?