Critical Mass

Phi Beta Cons pointed out a "scintillating" email from the Harvard dean of freshmen to students today. Follow the link to read the full text of the email which invites students to go and enjoy the "sexxxxxy suggestions." However, the most interesting part is the last line, which extends the invitation to "ALL students of every gender." Every gender? You mean all two of them? Wouldn't that just be both? Perhaps students at Harvard are in for some hot alien sex.

A reminder to all our readers that you can show your support for Critical Mass on facebook as well.  Join the group here.

A repeated theme in the comments section of Critical Mass over the past few days has been the impassioned demand by several readers to know just who I (or we) think I (or we) am (or are) to judge their personal choices. My response to one of these questioners was initially, "Well, for one, I am a rational human being." However, I think the nature of their inquiry requires further elaboration.

The question about the right to judge personal choices implicitly raises two issues, in addition to the nature, origin, and legitimacy of 'rights'. This latter issue, however, we won't get into here. For the purposes of discussion, we'll (tenuously) assume that said right does exist.

Now, the first issue which comes up is what it means to judge. Based on the nature of the comments I've read and the sense of indignation which they express, I'm inclined to assume that many readers view 'judging' as containing some intrinsic ability to enforce the associated judgment. It seems absurd, though, to say that they actually think I could enforce my opinions. And were I to actually attempt to do so, they would indeed have a legitimate cause for concern. 

What it really means to judge, though, is not so much to 'tell someone what to do' as to give an argument pertaining to what they should do and why their current choice of action is incorrect. When we think of it this way, as we should, I fail to see why I am obligated to refrain from doing this. I don't want to go so far as to say I am entitled to do this, as I don't like making up rights out of thin air, but certainly there is no prohibition, moral, legal or otherwise, which keeps from judging in this sense.

And yet, maybe these accusers of mine share this definition nonetheless. Perhaps what they really want to say is that I should refrain from ever thinking one course of action (of theirs, presumably) is ever better than another. Ah, relativism, you sly guest, always showing up uninvited. Under this view, telling me I should not be 'judging you' seems rather foolish. Everyone judges others everyday. Can you honestly stand up and berate me, saying, "Don't you dare disapprove of my actions. They are my own and you have no right to say they are wrong!"

Are we afraid of being convinced? Is that the issue? This is the only other option I can imagine: that people are actually afraid that if someone tells them what they are doing is wrong, they will either have to stop because they are ashamed, and thus lose the enjoyment of the activity which they previously had, or they will be convinced too that it is wrong and suffer the same consequence. Otherwise, what danger need anyone fear at being told they are doing something wrong? If you disagree with my argument, respond or ignore. But does its mere existence really threaten you that much?

The second issue brought up involves the idea of a "personal choice." The undercurrent here is a decidely libertarian one. And I'm not favorably disposed to libertarian; they miss much of many arguments in my opinion.

The thought process behind the "personal choice" defense is that the matter at hand involves no one other than those making the choice and that it has no consequences, negative or otherwise, for anyone else. This would a very nice, tidy little idea were it not for the blatant fact that we live in a small thing called society. Even personal choices, reflected through the altered demeanor of the actor and his subsequent further actions, have the ability to affect others.

Now, hold on there. Put down the pitch fork, don't lynch me yet. Don't worry, I don't want to regulate your entire life and I don't want to let anyone else regulate it either. I may not be a libertarian, but privacy and minimal government are good things, the issue of our rights to them aside.

But one must admit that experience has already deemed it prudent for certain choices to be regulated, lest their consequences spread willy nilly. Drug use is a perfect example. As long as I don't have to pay your medicare bill, I could care less if you fry your brain on crack. Yet, I think few would disagree that minimizing the portion of our population which spends their days at home, totally baked, is in the interest of the nation as a whole. Without specifically addressing whether sex in a shower stall falls under this category, what I do want to express is that not all "personal choices" are as simply personal as we make them out to be. Debate on whether any given choice is personal or social is entirely welcome and expressly needed, but refusal to even admit that some choices may be as I have described them is sheer pigheadedness.

Who am I to judge? I am one who doesn't accept arguments or positions just because they sound good. I judge because I think, and you should too. 

My good friend, Mr. Gelernter, has been assailed for "taking the moral highground." The problem with this view is its continued lack of reflection.

If no one ever takes the high road, chances are no one else will ever look up.

The plethora of childish comments on the post below are further evidence that the majority of students today, even those at 'elite' universities, simply don't take time to think. The spirit of a liberal education is nigh dead.

It is one thing to disagree with someone who defends premarital abstinence, but any objection ought to be one based on reason and not the infantile indignation of being told not to copulate as one pleases. Further, any time one makes an assumption that their opponent's position is purely irrational, they evade a rational discussion all together.

There is indeed a rational, and strong, case to be made for premarital abstinence. Dismissal of this position fails to consider that intercourse is not simple a physical act. In fact, how ignorant it seems, upon reflection, to relegate the singular act which allows for the continuity of the human race to be simply a matter of physical enjoyment. Is the human species nothing more than a race of epicureans with language?

If there is anything sacred about man's ability to reason, to opine, to contemplate the "why," then all of his actions must assume a greater teleology than pure sensual enjoyment. Sexual intercourse falls perfectly under this hermeneutic: it is the only way that a man and a woman may truly become one, that they may, as Diotima puts it in the Symposium, "give birth in beauty."

That the ultimate end of intercourse is reproduction is undeniable. To exclude consideration of this is to turn one's back on the importance of the human race. This is not to say it is never to be enjoyed or done for the sake of enjoyment. But when that enjoyment becomes its primary concern, the sanctity of the act is destroyed. There is no longer any meaning in the creation of life, and subsequently our regard for life in general is diminished. It is no coincidence that most of those who support abortion also support a "free love" approach to sex.

If you wish to argue with Mr. Gelernter, do so intelligently. Make a case, not a cause. Use thoughts, not thuggish platitudes. Tell him to his face that the union of a man and a woman is pointless and without meaning. I dare you to come up with one good reason. 

The Chicago Maroon's Editorial Board has decided to endorse "Gender Neutral Housing." What's more digusting than their position is their reluctance to admit it. They are determined to weigh in on controversial issues, but so afraid to offend anyone.

First they want to, “allow students to live in an environment that conforms with their notions of gender.” But they also want to stress that, “People with religious, cultural, or personal reasons for wanting gender-specific housing should have that option.” What do they think? Well, one would have to get to the bottom of the drivel to find out the real kicker:

Forcing different types of students together is for everyone’s benefit and is one of the best ways to overcome the stereotypes and prejudices that are rampant in our society.

You heard it, the best way to create diversity is to shove it down people’s throats until they like the taste. Wow, there’s tolerance for ya. Did people ever stop to think that some things were taboo for a reason?

The Democrats have taken control of Congress (cringe) and now they are pledging, among other things, to cut the interest rate on federal student loans in half (eyebrow raise). So weigh in, does the good outweigh the bad for conservative college students? Based on job cycles, in two years it might be a great time to be applying for jobs as a conservative.

David French, over at NRO's The Corner, knows what I'm talking about. I couldn't agree more with the following, and, in fact, have said precisely this before:

I think we’re less than ten years away from having a presidential nomination or a serious run for House or Senate derailed by an ill-considered Facebook entry.  If hazy high-school yearbook photos can cause weeks of angst for a Senator, think of the impact of the typical in-living-sound-and-color Myspace site.

Despite gobs of support from the indocrinated liberal-lemmings at groups like MoveOn.org, moving on seems to be one thing Senator Kerry still cannot do.

Honestly, how does this man take himself seriously? How could anyone else for that matter? In his most recent tantrum, John Kerry has compared Joe Lieberman to Dick Cheney and said that,

...Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut.

Apparently the Senator from Masschussetts hasn't viewed the most recent poll data. 

I'll be surprised if I'm the first one to think of this pun, but I think we should start referring to leftist bloggers as KOSmonauts, as their minds seem to be off in space.

In case you were wondering what the Editors meeting in Cape Cod this summer was like, it was something like this.

A new piece by our friends over at FOX News outlines the various rising costs of higher education. The piece is part of a new "daily series that takes a look at the college experience, from how to choose what school and course of study is right for you to finding innovative ways to pay the bills." I, for one, can certainly empathize with high tuition and absurdly large student loans.

There's a great piece over at Slate on the Dems shooting themselves in the foot again regarding the Lamont vs. Lieberman shindig.

USAToday reveals some interesting facts about Al Gore's failure to practice his own preaching. Among the more notable:

- Gore owns 14,000 square feet of housing

- Paramount Classics actually pays fore the renewable energy credits to make up for his use of his private jet

- Gore holds hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock in Occidental Petroleum

- "Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River."

Keep up the good work, Mr. I-used-to-be-the-next-president-of-The-United-States. 

The most recent development is that "Members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard have been found among Hizbollah guerrillas slain by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon." In any other era this would pretense for all-out, regional (or world) war. Another demonstration why nuclear weapons make the world a safer, more stable place.

Re: Lieberman vs. Lamont, I'm siding with the crowd that's betting this is gonna backfire bigtime for the dems. I always liked Liberman; I think he's one of the more sensible democrats in decades.

As for Castro, a reader of The Corner had some very interesting thoughts a couple days ago on the nature of dictatorships and the lack of publicity for Raul/Fidel since Fidel's operation. And once Castro is out, it's only a matter of time until Bay of Pigs 2.0. Hopefully, and probably, this time around will included a lot more money and support. And once the Castro[-esque] regime in Cuba falls, it's only a matter of time until private American money begins FLOODING into Cuba - and cigars out. Personally, I'm excited. 

The Oslo Sperm Bank in Norway is not accepting contributions from homosexual donors, despite struggles to reach their goal of 30-40 new donors each year.

Laboratory chief Peter Fedorcsak is opposed to homosexual donors, and questions their psychological suitability for being donors.

"The main motivation for a donor must be a desire to help others, not, for example, donating sperm in order to spread one's own genes," Fedorcsak told Dagsavisen.

The results of a recent study showing that youth who listen to sexually explicit music have sex at an earlier age shouldn't surprise readers of Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind - or anyone with common sense, for that matter. I'm sure that somewhere from the beyond, Mr. Bloom has let out a big, "Ha! I told you so!"