Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Campus, Moral Confusion Abounds
When I was in college, an RA invited me to his room to hang out one evening. The visit progressively got creepier, but so gradually that I didn’t leap out of the boiling pot, just like the proverbial frog. Eventually, by which time I was nearly writhing in discomfort and looking for any excuse to leave, the conversation culminated in the RA wanting to demonstrate some masturbation techniques. “How comfortable do you feel with me?” he asked. “Not that comfortable, to be honest,” I replied and quickly left the room despite his protestations. He never laid a hand on me and did nothing to prevent my leaving.
I learned afterward that he was notorious for this type of behavior, going so far as to bust students for drug or alcohol infractions in the dorms, but letting them off the hook if they would report to his room for “counseling.” He really liked baseball players and would often give lengthy massages to the guys in his room. (Rumor has it they often had particularly happy endings.) Of course, almost all this was second-hand, word-of-mouth-type stuff, but my experience certainly made me believe it was at least possible. However, I never reported him. To this day, I have no idea why.
I did, however, tell all my friends, and the story grew into a favorite at parties. I’d recount the conversation detail by nauseating detail in a way that grew more outrageous with each telling, and the audience would roar with laughter each time I told the story. But why didn’t I take it to the Dean? I mean, I’m a bright guy with a thoroughly moral upbringing — raised by strict Christian parents, top of my class, full academic ride … all that jazz. I was a freshman, sure, but I knew how these things work, and I wasn’t intimidated by the school administration. But still … nothing. People were potentially (and I later found out definitely) being hurt by this creep, and for me, it was more useful to use the sordid little affair as a way to boost my social capital around campus.
Solomon reported that “without counsel plans fail; but with many advisers they succeed.” Good advice for adults, I think, but perhaps toxic for young people, especially those immersed in campus culture. I could have gone to one college counselor to talk about what happened and gotten good advice. But instead, I went to many of my college-aged peers and got terrible advice — and the poisonous idea that my story was good for some laughs. But the laughs aside, the general tenor of my peers’ wisdom was that he had been getting away with this for a long time — the administration knew and didn’t care. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But I bought it. And, boy, was it a good story at parties.
Eventually, the RA got caught and wrist-slapped. Nothing legal, just inconvenient. There may have been a speck of wisdom in my peers after all.
To this day, I cannot explain why I essentially did nothing. Why I said nothing. It wasn’t shame. It wasn’t a fear of being called a liar. I can only describe it as moral confusion. I wanted to belong on campus, and immediately accusing a popular RA of sexual harassment seemed like social suicide. And then, when the story got popular, it just reinforced that bad decision. I knew better, but there was a competing interest that pulled me in a different direction.
I’m a high school teacher now. I manage the Fine Arts Program for our county (sort of), teach drama classes, and maintain our Performing Arts Center. I love my job like you wouldn’t believe. If one of my students walked into my office with a story like mine, we would both march down to the main office together to have an emergency meeting with an administrator. It’s a no-brainer. But stories like mine rarely come to my attention. Those that do are serious, and it makes me fear for the things that I do not hear about. The moral confusion that swept me up in college is becoming deep and broad. In fact, I fear it is an abyss that is swallowing up many, many of our young people.
These are real events that I have dealt with in the last year:
Case Number 1
Consider Xander (not his real name). Xander is both black and of … ambiguous sexuality. Xander is creeping out most of my class with his behavior. He stares at people. He stands too close. He touches people (mostly boys) more intimately than is comfortable, even in a drama class. He makes remarks about peoples’ bodies, often to their face. He starts touching people near their groin and leaving his hand resting on their inner thigh as if it were a natural, friendly gesture. In the days before I finally had him removed from my class, I actually heard the following conversation:
- Morally confused student 1: “Xander is making me feel really uncomfortable, but I’m afraid to say anything.”
- Morally confused student 2: “Xander? Oh, that’s just his sexuality.”
- Morally UNconfused teacher (me, butting in): “Creepy and inappropriate is not a “sexuality.”
Case Number 2
Gay student feels entitled to enter girls’ dressing room at any time but without my knowledge or permission. For this particular show, girls are having to make rather complete changes. Student sees no problem with this at all. Student enjoys joshing with the gals while comparing make-up tips and posting Snapchats of himself smacking the girls on the bottom and making comments about their appearance. Some girls hide in the bathroom to change, and are mocked by other girls for being “intolerant” and “prudish.” One girl finally complains to an administrator. Other girls are interviewed. Student is expelled for multiple infractions. Rather than allow her son to be sent to alternative school, student’s mother moves him states away to a more progressive school where girls presumably swallow their discomfort in order to serve the higher calling of progress.
Case Number 3
Biologically male student claims to be “trans.” Says that means he isn’t “a boy or a girl.” Dresses like a boy. Makes no attempt to act female. Makes out regularly with a girl from band. Wants to use the girls’ restroom and changing room. Acts greatly put upon when denied. Is allowed to use a teacher’s unisex bathroom. Treats this like punishment. Was previously sent to alternative school for spying on girls in the bathroom. Is completely supported by a committed subgroup of peers who regularly rail against the intolerance and hate of the school administration for not supporting his trans identity.
Case Number 4
Young female student is in a relationship with another underclassman. The young man is deeply involved in BDSM and includes her in his sexual escapades. She is often hurt by him during their adventures. He talks openly with other students about dominant/submissive behavior. About how he would never hit a girl … in the face. About how it is a lifestyle. Most of the peer group is scared and uncomfortable about this. However, he assures them it is perfectly normal, and who are they to judge what consenting people do? After weeks and weeks of being confronted with this, one student finally goes to the counselor. The young lady is brought in for questioning. She admits nothing and there is no proof. The reporting student is ostracized from her former friend group.
Let’s break down each of the examples. In Case 1 and 3 there is a sexually predatory young person who also exhibits some flavor of homosexual tendency. As such, the behaviors are viewed by their peers through the lens of homosexuality. To portray any of their behaviors as deviant or inappropriate is to risk being a homophobe or hater. Better to suffer their sexual predation than to risk being intolerant. In Case 1, the fact that Xander is black makes students even less likely to report him, lest they are considered racist. In Case 3, there is such a poor understanding of what it means to be transsexual that almost anything is par for the course.
Moral confusion abounds.
In Case 2, although the embarrassed girls actually suffer, the gay student is almost as much a victim. He believes there is nothing wrong with what he is doing and genuinely cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with it. The poor girls who are banished to the bathroom are reluctant to say anything, fearing they will be held up to mockery and scorn for their un-woke ways. The fact that they feel uncomfortable is in itself damning. Everyone loses in this case.
Moral confusion abounds.
In Case 4, we have the mainstreaming of violent, deviant sexual behavior. It’s made acceptable, because, after all, 50 Shades of Grey. The tattling student is intolerant and ignorant. Violent sexual behavior, as long as it is covered by the veil of consent, is yet another thread in the rich tapestry of sexual identity. Could a “consenting” partner actually be an abused and battered young girl with a tragic, psychological inability to leave her abuser? Nonsense! Any such talk is hate speech.
Moral confusion abounds.
There are ways to deal with questions of sexual identity, of propriety, of acceptable behavior. But as of right now, our society and culture have absolutely no consensus on what that looks like. We are appalled at the image of Franken’s hands near the breasts of a sleeping woman, but barely blink at violent and graphic depictions of rape on prime-time television. The swings in sexual mores occurring in our culture right now, from the castigation of Weinstein to the defense of Moore, Thomas, Clinton, Kennedy (and Kennedy and Kennedy), are becoming deadly. They resemble the swings of that terrifying blade in Poe’s story “The Pit and the Pendulum,” and I fear that our children are strapped to the table beneath it.
Published in General
Humanity has been around for a long time. It seems to me that some culture or two ought to have been through this sort of thing before.
Do we know how they solved it? Or did they?
That may be the rub.
Clarence Thomas?
Yes. Just listing the accused whose public hearings have had an impact on the culture. Though I really have to grit my teeth to list Thomas with Clinton and Kennedy.
Collapse?
Seriously. Only a very rich society can afford this type of deviancy. If we are talking about subsistence-level society where every hand has to turn to producing the food to keep themselves alive the next year, and shelter and clothing this type of behavior leads to reduced productivity. (Women have fewer children as one consequence, especially in societies which tolerate the behavior illustrated in case 4.)
It can be put up with when times are good, but then a crop fails for a year or so, and not enough surplus has been set aside, and the next thing you know your society finds itself in the dustbin of history. Oh well. That has been the story for most of history for most of humanity.
Over the last 200-300 years enough surplus has been accumulated that this rule no longer applies. The wages of sin are no longer death (at least on a societal level) because there are enough goods to cushion the losses incurred. Until the problem grows to a scale where it can no longer be suffered and then . . . birthrate goes below replacement rate, and eventually everything implodes, man reverts to a state of nature, and in a few years a new society arises with new (actually very old) norms of behavior.
Virtually every successful society has its version of the Ten Commandments – because they lead to a a successful society. We accept as a good thing that we cannot kill people because the urge takes us, pretty much without questioning it. (Ditto prohibitions on stealing although we do allow ourselves to steal from others if we hedge it in magical words about redistribution.) It may be the other prohibitions and requirements (honoring parents, not worshiping false gods, etc.) are just as valid.
On the other hand, living in a decadent society just seems so much more fun.
Seawriter
It seems to me that all these cases represent the culture the left pushes and expects us to
tolerateaccept. Let me jump on my tolerance soapbox again:But to the left, the entire language of this current movement is completely void of the supernatural. It is therapeutic language solely focused on a temporal end: acceptance. It is capitulation to the cultural left rather than proclamation of the gospel truth.
Thank you for standing in the gap as much as you can for our kids, @drusus. Though you didn’t mention it, I imagine there are constraints upon what you can say/do to help the kids. The picture you’ve painted is stark, but real.
How do you counteract something that has no end — goes throughout all areas of society overturning centuries of societal norms in the name of free speech/individual rights — and allows no discussion? Indeed, insists on silence or suffer personal penalty (literally in loss of jobs, arrest, legal fees/fines; or, less severe, abuse/ostracism on social media) for those who dare to object, voice a differing opinion.
Peer pressure has existed in societies since the dawn of time. The aggressive forced march toward increased Progressivism creates pressure particularly harmful to our kids. The tide has to be stemmed to allow dissenting voices to be heard if any consensus is to be reached, but how?
This particular soap box is very appropriate in this particular thread @ScottWilmot :-)
There is a misconception that Christianity does not allow hate. This is not correct. What it teaches is God greatly loves the sinner, but hates…and I do mean Hates…the sin. It’s an obvious and continuous thread from beginning of Old Testament and continuing through the New Testament.
It doesn’t require being of the Christian faith to notice that most of the 10 commandments are intended for the good of mankind in general (all of them if you believe in the Christian God). Our country has prospered from generations of common adherence to laws and basic concepts of individual rights derived from God and concepts contained in those commandments. The farther we get from those laws, those inalienable rights being given by God — change or outright ignore those laws, crush those derived rights or allow them only for those who agree with a politically correct view — the less free and prosperous our society becomes.
Amen. Because the Right has allowed the Left to control the language for so long, words like “tolerance” are now infused with new meaning and the Left uses them as a cudgel to beat down anyone who dares to disagree.
I’m afraid in Case #3, the kids have it right, according to the new mores. If objective physical evidence (genitalia and chromosomes) isn’t enough to identify someone’s sex, why should “acting” or “dressing” like a girl be required to identify as a girl? I’ve been saying I’m a trans-athlete (despite being, objectively, a clumsy middle-aged housewife) for a few years since the “trans” craze started. Who can deny me?
More fallout from radical individualism and its attendant subjectivism.
Good post.
Yes and it may take a war to rid this society of such behavioral quirks. All I can say is that this is an argument for home schooling.
I can always trust you when the question is one of history. ;^D
I have cringed at how much GLOP goes on about Game of Thrones. Conservative elites are part of the problem. Why not celebrate straight porn?
John Podhoretz is a big fan. Which seems odd.
Maybe the reason you didn’t report the RA was the same reason he only got wrist-slapped later. Namely, because what he was doing, what he said to you, wasn’t a crime, and maybe not even a violation of school rules. The current focus on sexual harassment often doesn’t seem to keep the distinction between illegal activity and merely inappropriate conduct in mind.
Can’t remember when I’ve read a more compelling essay demonstrating the toxic direction the Left is taking our Society. It’s hard to believe anyone thinks this is a good thing. I hope this post comes to the attention of Dennis Prager. I really think he would appreciate it, along with the comments.
Probably is by now.
Not at all. Effete, decadent people quite often like vicarious vice and violence (and totalitarian ruthlessness fictional or real: consider Communism’s popularity, and the egregious Thomas Friedman’s wish that Obama didn’t have to deal with all that pesky democracy and due process stuff.)
I read somewhere that Queen Victoria brought about what we would call a return to a conservative lifestyle. It followed a period of permissiveness and social breakdown. Her reign saw some success:
A decade or two ago, most Monday mornings, Matt Drudge would post links to pictures in the London papers taken over the weekend in the London city streets. So much drunkenness and lewd behavior–it was overwhelming to look at. I thought at the time that this lifestyle was only ten years away for us. I wasn’t too far wrong–it’s not as bad here most of the time, but it’s getting pretty crazy out there. Clearly there are a lot of people living unmoored from the family-centered life that made this country so strong once upon a time.
I have hope, however, that we can restore some sanity to civic life. Queen Victoria accomplished some restoration of civility and family life in England. I hope we can do the same here. It can be done.
Gertrude Himmelfarb’s work on Victorian history is very interesting.
Do I need to start worrying about my wife, who dotes on it?
Delingpole and Toby Young used to have a podcast devoted to it. But the British were always bloody-minded.
I don’t see it happening without a great trauma leading to a religious revival.
There was the Great Awakening.
Optimism is cheap. What can I say. :) :) :) It probably won’t happen. :)
Just one?
Outstanding post. As a grandmother, I want to say thank you for writing this, Drusus.
Can we call attention to Ancient Greece? Just look at modern Greece.
Indeed, it is a misconception. Psalm 97:10 – Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.
(While the examples given by Drusus are not evil, there are some instances of this nature that assuredly are.)