Dear Liza Potter: I am delighted to respond to your recent charge against me, which was sent to Rosemary DePaolo, Chancellor of UNC-Wilmington. Characterizing my column as an act of sexual harassment against all women in the UNC system is a tremendous favor for which I am truly grateful. I’ll explain that as I go along. In the opening lines of your sexual harassment complaint, you stated that you “feel very strongly” that my “sexist, discriminatory language toward the female students at UNC constitutes sexual harassment and violates the existing anti-discrimination policy.” That is an extremely important point, Liza. In order to file a complaint in the UNC system, the plaintiff must have very strong feelings. Feelings are the basis of every decision in our system. Logic and objectivity are irrelevant and probably sexist, too. But, while your complaint starts off strong, you have made some serious errors in the second paragraph of your missive. (Or is that Msive? Please pardon any unintended sexism). The three major errors follow: 1. Your sexual harassment complaint states that “You, in the column, call female students at UNC-Chapel Hill ‘promiscuous.’” Go back and read the article. The word “promiscuous” does not appear anywhere. It seems that you have falsified a sexual harassment report, which you copied to my superiors.
I am sorry but I have no other choice than to conclude that this act of falsification is a form of “sexist, discriminatory language” that “constitutes sexual harassment and violates the existing anti-discrimination policy.” I will file my complaint against you some time later this week. 2. Your complaint also says that I called UNC female students “nymphomaniacs.” Not true, Liza. Here is the relevant quote: “While the UNC administration is undoubtedly thrilled that these coeds are turning out to be nymphomaniacs rather than intellectuals…” Based upon a closer examination of my quote, you can see that I have expressed the opinion that when female students a) organize an Orgasm Awareness Festival, b) erect (note: this is not intended to be sexist language in violation of the UNC anti-discrimination policy) a vibrator museum, and c) begin to collect antique vibrators from 1924, this suggests that they are “turning out to be nymphomaniacs.”
That doesn't mean they are there yet, Liza. It just means that there is a clear trend in the direction of nymphomania. Had they erected two vibrator museums - instead of just one - I might have taken the plunge and suggested that they are already “nymphomaniacs.” But, cautious as always, I held my tongue. 3. In your letter, you also accuse me of “calling students such derogatory names as ‘whores’” which is “simply disgusting and inexcusable.” You also repeat (for good measure) the assertion that my speech “seems to go beyond the bounds of free speech and into the territory of "[Harassment] based on... sex," which is specifically mentioned in the Harassment Prevention Policy of the UNC system.
Actually, you really blew it, here, Liza. Recently, at “The Vagina Monologues” our campus feminists suggested that it is acceptable to call women “c**ts.” So, of course, had I really called them “whores” that would have been much better than calling them “c**ts” as the feminists would prefer. But, of course, I did not call them “whores.” My actual statement follows: Continued... |