Featured Quizzes
Featured Debates
Featured Quizzes

Professor Under Fire for Suggesting Unconscious Rape Might be OK

His thought experiment was beyond thoughtless, charge critics who demand he be fired

Next Article
share on Facebook tweet it
• • •
Share on Tumblr

Image: wikimedia

Thick skins everywhere are being tested by the news that an economics professor in New York asked why, exactly, unconscious rape should be considered so awful.

Professor Steven Landsburg of Rochester University posted on his blog late last month a "dilemma about public policy" that questioned the extent to which the state should recognize mental, as opposed to physical, harm when crafting legislation. He cites the discomfort some feel knowing that others are watching porn or ruining the environment as examples of such psychic injury. But the hypothetical question that landed Landsburg in trouble concerned unconscious rape, of the sort that occurred in Steubenville recently:

"Let's suppose that someone we love is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm - no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission," he writes. "Despite the lack of physical damage, we are shocked at the thought of being treated in this way - such acts of rape...should they be illegal?"

To the group Women Organized to Resist and Defend, the answer is obvious, and the question dangerous. They've started an online campaign to get Landsburg fired for his navel-gazing attempt to "normalize and minimize the effects of rape."

"Endorsing violence against women is hate speech and should not be tolerated," the group writes.

Via Raw Story.
0
share
0
tweet
share on Facebook share on twitter
Should Landsburg be fired for his blog post?

Yes, definitely, he crossed the line
Yes, definitely, he crossed t...

No, it was merely a thought experiment
No, it was merely a thought e...

Wow, this one's tough
Wow, this one's tough

View Results | 112 Votes

Best
142 Comments
Post
  • #80 •
    CATTLEPROD
    !
    I am wondering if this professor may have already commited the act in question and was sending out a feeler to see what trouble he'll be in when the co-ed who came over to talk about her grades, with a camera rolling in her purse, sues for having a mickey slipped in her drink and ..............
    1 Reply
  • #86 •
    Ryuo
    !
    @CATTLEPROD I'm glad to see you think deeply about this topic. Would your purely hypothetical coed start with hypothetically blackmailing the putatively only lonely professor?
    0 Reply
  • #12 •
    Wait-----what
    !
    Nowhere did he say that he thought rape was okay. The title of this story is misleading for the sake of getting people to read it.

    He had a thought....albeit a stupid one in my opinion....but it was a thought. I think maybe he was trying to start a debate. He wasn't condoning rape, or "Endorsing violence against women", and to suggest such is ludicrous. But it does beg the question, why would he bring up rape in an economics class?

    Why is it everytime someone says something someone else doesn't like or agree with, that person has to go away forever, be ridiculed, or fired or whatever? I thought only communist countries persecuted people that said things that were unpopular?......oh wait.....nevermind.
    4 Reply
  • #81 •
    Denizen_Kate
    !
    Yes, I understand the difference between getting students to think about something, and actually advocating it. However, before he shot his mouth off about this particular scenario, perhaps he should have taken some roofies himself and let himself be physically violated while unconscious. Perhaps then his question would have been answered to his complete satisfaction.
    2 Reply
  • #11 •
    Colonel_Angus
    !
    While recognizing freedom of speech, I also think the Professor, as an educator has a responsibility to young impressionable minds. This kind of "preaching" is dangerous because it will encourage even more "roofie rape" or "drunken, unconscious rape" of women and even men. To have sex with someone who does not give you consent is rape as defined by law. If someone isn't even conscious to give you approval or refusal, that's still rape. I'm sure if someone did that to the Professor's Daughter, Sister, Wife or Mother, or even Son, Brother, Father, he wouldn't be so cavalier about it.
    4 Reply
  • #20 •
    Nikkinala
    !
    I didn't get the impression that he was preaching. The wording seemed to me like a way to evoke discussion, albeit it would be more appropriately addressed in a classroom setting where discussion can actually occur.
    0 Reply
  • #7 •
    skeptic
    !
    Was he trying to get his class to debate this topic? How do you justify rape on an unconscious victim?I don't think he thought this out too well
    4 Reply
  • #55 •
    CommonSense
    !
    Debating things where the answer seems obvious but where we might not have really thought it out can help to strengthen one's convictions and help one to define foundational values for morality and ethics. If you understand why rape is wrong, not just that it is wrong then your reason for why it is wrong then informs the rest of your moral, ethical, and political decision-making.
    2 Reply
  • #24 •
    WMCOL
    !
    The issue with rape is it is non-consensual and an unconscious person does not have the wherewithal to consent, making the sex illegal.
    3 Reply
  • #25 •
    QuiteCrazy
    !
    Fired for thinking? It maybe thoughtless or crass or whatever your want but it was only an experiment in thought, a provoking question. If someone was so offended they just should have thoughtfully answered, "Professor, if you woke up and found out you were raped my a gang of men does it count? They didn't hurt you. You were unconcious, perfectly relaxed." See, thought provoking...
    2 Reply
  • #6 •
    Realthinker
    !
    Having experienced this twice, I can say it absolutely harms the relationship. In a relationship where trust is paramount, such an act conveys disrespect at best and an expectation of servitude at it's worst. A trusted significant other is no more entitled to use his partner's body while she sleeps than any other man. The Steubenville case was rape. No excuses.
    2 Reply
  • #3 •
    Libertyiskey
    !
    I feel the same way about this guy as I do the stomp on Jesus professor, if you don't like his ideas or teaching methods, don't take the god damn class. No need to fire somebody every time there teaching method or thoughts are stupid if they don't cause any harm or break any school rules.
    2 Reply
  • #10 •
    puppybrownie
    !
    Oh, paleeeze! If a professor asked his class to stomp on Mohammed he would be fired in a minute and a fatwah placed on him. Teaching gullible students garbage does cause harm, that's how we got so many mindless liberals coming out of our colleges!
    1 Reply
  • #15 •
    Libertyiskey
    !
    @puppybrownie You have any proof of your claim or just right wing rhetoric? Take South Park for example, they make fun of Christianity all the time Jesus and all his pals. Made fun of Mohammed too. They weren't taken off air. Give me an example of someone being fired for perceived disrespect of the Muslims but let alone for Christianity. If you're afraid of your kids going to college and becoming liberal then don't pay for it. I went to college and didn't turn into some liberal who wants to fire people for teaching something I don't agree with. And I'm supposed to believe you're the one who wants small government and personal liberty right?
    1 Reply
  • #49 •
    puppybrownie
    !
    @Libertyiskey Are you saying you're not a liberal? LOL
    And, comparing An expensive college education to watching South Park? you must have gone to community college. LOL
    0 Reply
  • #52 •
    PayThatCEO
    !
    @puppybrownie

    Nothing wrong with community college. You actually LEARN something that will get you a decent job and you won't be neck high in debt when you're done.
    0 Reply

  • R Load more replies

  • #38 •
    DARSB
    !
    Rather hyperbolic language from the women's group. The professor's language certainly doesn't read as an "endorsement" of anything.
    1 Reply
  • #85 •
    Denizen_Kate
    !
    The professor's language indicates that he considers unconscious rape or molestation to be a victimless crime. It isn't. Just because you have no memory of the act doesn't mean you weren't physically violated. It isn't the same as having someone shout insults at you while you're unconscious.
    0 Reply
  • #89 •
    DARSB
    !
    @Denizen_Kate I didn't read that as a conclusion, more a Socratic enquiry, but I also didn't go to the source blog and read the entire essay.
    0 Reply
  • #30 •
    ctc
    !
    I'd really like to see this professor doze off at his desk and wake up with a legal mouthful.
    1 Reply
  • #29 •
    Bill2E
    !
    Rape is rape, and Unconscious Rape is RAPE. I believe the rapist should be jailed, and be registered as a danger to society. And we wonder why our children are developing ideas like this, they are being taught this in our colleges and universities, fire him and get someone that teaches the truth.
    1 Reply
  • #57 •
    CommonSense
    !
    He wasn't saying that was his opinion. Devil's advocate is an important method of understanding moral, ethical, political, and legal reasoning. Through it you can understand why rape is wrong, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's pain(or else consensual S&M would be illegal), it has to do with people's rights. A person can enjoy being raped and they are still justified in pressing charges against their attacker and the full sentencing should still apply because the issue isn't pain the issue is rights.
    If we don't understand why certain things are wrong then we will not be able to form solid foundations for answering moral questions. Logically the reason why rape is wrong should also apply to, well everything else unless there's some logical reason for an exception. Only by considering why rape is wrong can one arrive at that reason.
    0 Reply
  • #107 •
    Bill2E
    !
    @CommonSense I did consider your response and went to the professors 3 questions to his students trying to evoke critical thinking and justify why they thought rape was wrong when the other two scenarios he presented were different. I see exactly the same reasoning used to justify the professors reasoning or answer to each student that I saw in one college class in the 60's. It is an attempt to convoke the students that his method of reasoning should be their reasoning. Students in a university or college usually do not argue with a professor that continues to insist his manner of reaching a decision is superior to theirs, and in many cases adopt the professors manner of looking at the situation. If you pose a question that is not in character with two other question and require use of critical thinking be used in exactly the same manner to solve all three questions, you are using your power as a professor to influence and change the responders to your way of thinking. Guess what? You get a bad grade if you don't convert to the professors manner of reasoning. I strongly disagree with the lesson taught and the manner in which it was taught.

    Devils Advocate he is, and I'm not super religious or a Bible Thumper.
    0 Reply
  • #139 •
    CommonSense
    !
    @Bill2E
    If the professor is really grading people based on opinion and not reasoning then that shouldn't be allowed. Though I'll admit it's a very gray area. How do you determine what is good and bad reasoning?
    But it's not like students are helpless. Even if pushed into a corner if you really realize the professor is wrong you could lie instead of changing your own opinion. It's not ideal but I think the emphasis on "not lying" and "standing up for your opinion in all cases" leads people to rationalize their own opinion into the norm to avoid having to make tough choices. Sometimes the practical choice is to hold one opinion and express another opinion and it's the only way for a person to maintain independence of their own opinion on the inside because they realize that if they rigidly hold that their own opinion and express opinion must be the same then they will wind up eventually rationalizing themselves into the consensus opinion for benefits which are irresistible. Too many people will read this and think "but I have enough integrity to avoid these temptations". Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't and it's a matter of observation to tell whether you'll be able to handle it, if you can't handle it then it's always better to lie to others than to lie to yourself.
    This sort of pressure happens in everyday conversations as well. There are probably opinions you express on a daily basis which on closer introspection you'll realize you don't really believe and just tricked yourself into following to fit in. In fact psychology shows this phenomenon is widely responsible for the polarization we see today in politics. I'd recommend taking a big long look at yourself, your views, think of the relevant facts (and how well you know they are true), and ask how you really feel about the world especially if you consider yourself very liberal or very conservative. You might surprise yourself at how untrue your views are to yourself.
    1 Reply
  • #140 •
    Bill2E
    !
    @CommonSense I have made the journey you suggested, and looked at why I think and feel the way I do as well as why I am who I am. It was an awakening and a number of things changed at that time, I was not so ardently for or against a number of issues, and was able to listen to others without being offended. It was not a collage professor or other authoritative person that caused me to look at all this, it was dealing with people associated with my work. It became necessary to understand why they felt and acted in the manner they did, so I could be objective in my thinking and not overreact to the individual. I continue to do reality checks on myself daily. The professor evidently has not done objective thinking regarding his situation or scenarios
    1 Reply
  • #27 •
    jmiller94
    !
    I don't agree with him, but those are his thoughts. So his job should be safe. If he rapes someone while they're unconscious, the legal system will probably agree with me, and if he's lucky the other inmates will beat him unconscious before they rape him.
    1 Reply
  • #22 •
    Tarynsmommy
    !
    He should have just worded it differently thats all. He may have felt he had an ok topic for debate of cause and effect of sorts and just misworded the question in a hurry to get it out there. No one would have said a word if he would have asked should it STAY illegal or Why or similar terms. Or its also possible that its such a touchy topic for some people that people would have attacked him for the effort of debate regardless of how the question was phrased.
    1 Reply
  • #18 •
    Nikkinala
    !
    Assuming his goal is for students to understand why it's wrong, I believe it's an important discussion. Nonetheless, the question would have been more appropriately asked in a classroom setting as part of a larger discussion. Interaction is limited and intent is less obvious when it's written.
    1 Reply
  • #17 •
    falco_alba
    !
    Not one woman that this world has ever produced would allow that thought to cross their minds. Regardless of memory, no woman wants a man sticking his penis in her without her consent. Being intoxicated does not mean that she gives that up and it does not give men the outlet to get away with it. What an asinine concept.
    1 Reply
  • #14 •
    lalia123
    !
    You cant get mad a someone for expressing their opinion. If that is the way he feel let him. How is that effecting us in any way? Honestly why don't we just mind our own business for a change.
    1 Reply
  • #21 •
    Nikkinala
    !
    He wasn't stating this as a private citizen, it was done in the context of his professorship - he was writing to his students as a teacher. However, I think it was a lame attempt to evoke discussion on the subject and he shouldn't be fired over it.
    1 Reply
  • #43 •
    jessejaymes
    !
    Maybe because rape is an act of violence not sex and he's saying that we shouldn't prosecute an act of violence if the person is "not hurt". Using you people's logic then if I robe you but don't hurt you then I should not be prosecuted?
    2 Reply
  • #9 •
    PNWest
    !
    It was a stupid and insensitive question but people don't deserve to be fired over something as trivial as this.
    1 Reply
  • #19 •
    Ryuo
    !
    I don't know what "Thought democrats" are - sounds impossible - but anybody who thinks somebody should be fired for saying stupid stuff on the internet is sanctioning the Thought Police. Why, most people on this forum should be fired, by that criterion.
    0 Reply
  • #26 •
    Litdes
    !
    The first amendment grants free speech, it doesn't require that speech to be particularly intelligent. There are plenty of examples of inept speech from both side of the aisle. Particularly in a collegiate environment, one should have the freedom to make such an argument, if only for the purposes of debate and development of logic skills.

    These statements are, at best, stupid, but the constitution guarantees his right to make such statements.
    1 Reply
  • #32 •
    PNWest
    !
    @Yank There is a very big difference between being fired and losing an election. Even you must know that. If this DBag was running for office I wouldn't support him. But he does not deserve to be fired.
    1 Reply

  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post
© 2015 Topix LLC