I just want to draw your attention to the insistence by the authors of this nasty little piece that students are excessively fragile and litigious for not wanting to engage in ~dialogue with people who have direct institutional power over them, and for invoking the institutional power that purports to mediate disputes between students and faculty
this is pretty much exactly the way Schulman’s conflict is not abuse and anti-trigger-warning arguments are supposed to work, in tandem. this isn’t a limit case of ‘what can go wrong’, this is… how they’re supposed to work. and the fact that they’re being used to smear a trans academic and the authors’ students, instead of combatting fragility around critical discussions of Israel, or inclusion of sexually explicit content in a syllabus, doesn’t make that any less true.
the point I am making on Other Platform is that you can’t draw a comparison between students who want trigger warnings in classrooms and ones who want BDS advocates denied tenure because there are cosmetic similarities between their arguments and they both use institutional systems of redress to oppose the direct authority professors have over them without opening yourself up to the argument that, if your whole deal can also be used to defend this garbage, it’s also politically suspect
the whole thing about tactics? you can use them to multiple ends. you can’t generalise about students using institutional redress or social media campaigns being regressive without also opening yourself up to criticism when your arguments about the role of professors in questioning assumptions and whatever gets used to defend rank transphobia. I, personally, don’t need to see them used this way to see how bad they are, because I’ve already seen Schulman wring her hands about Anthony Wiener sending dick pics to a minor, but you can draw the comparison.