Education, Features, Politics

Academic Freedom Under Threat in Sweden

“You will include Judith Butler in your course.” That was announced to Erik Ringmar, senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Lund University, after the September meeting of the department’s board of directors. Not that there’s anything wrong with reading the queer studies feminist Butler. It’s just that the course Ringmar teaches is primarily about the reaction to modernity at the turn of the last century, with a focus on fascism.

During earlier semesters it included a part about postmodernism, and within it Butler, but it was removed because it didn’t fit in with the rest of the course. “There is not a course committee in the world which can force me to teach Judith Butler unless I want to,” Ringmar wrote on his blog. This has led to strong protests from student activists, the board, the director of studies and the dean.

Of course, this is no great catastrophe in and of itself. It’s just a literature list, after all. But it is part of a much larger process by which academic freedom in Sweden is being circumscribed. What is happening now in the political science department at Lund University is fully sanctioned by the gender mainstreaming that the government has ordered all Swedish universities to implement (more on that later).

A Threat to Academic Freedom

The department’s goal, set by the board and approved by the academic board, is that the proportion of female authors must never fall below 40 percent of the reading lists. A course like Erik Ringmar’s—”Modern society and its critics“—which focuses on original texts from around the turn of the last century, immediately gets into trouble since fascism in the 1930s wasn’t exactly a bastion of gender equality. So Ringmar’s reading list contained too few female reactionaries for the board to be satisfied. He tried to resolve this by including anarchism as another violent political response to modernity (although it was not really the original idea of the course), and unlike female fascists, their anarchistic counterparts actually wrote a great deal. But even so, the proportion of female authors on the course’s reading list only reached 15 percent.

It wasn’t good enough, according to the board. Judith Butler had to be included.

The gender equality plan of the Faculty of Social Sciences makes it clear that teachers must include sufficient literature from gender studies. What’s currently happening to Erik Ringmar, a senior lecturer being forced to change his course, has already occurred a number of times according to the political science department’s own equality plan. The only difference is that Ringmar protested the decision. The Faculty’s Gender Equality Plan further imposes on all subordinate institutions the following: “Make an inspection of whether and how common curriculums and literature lists are being reviewed, ensuring that gender and diversity perspectives are represented in the faculty’s education.” It doesn’t stop there. According to the department’s action plan for gender equality, all teaching staff are required to take a mandatory “Gender and Diversity in Education” course, taught in the Faculty of Social Sciences.

All of this is guided by the underlying principle that it is not just about recruiting more women, it is about getting the right kind of gender perspectives which are influenced by the postmodernist and poststructuralist theories dominant within the humanities. While these perspectives may be interesting in some contexts, they are usually strongly ideological and almost always impossible to falsify.

Gender Mainstreaming

The direction to include Judith Butler on his reading list made the Director of Studies and Erik Ringmar decide to not hold the course again. Students who want to learn about the emergence of fascism at the turn of the 20th century need to apply to another university, and all this at a time when right-wing reaction is on the rise again in Europe.

This is just one example of academic freedom being traded for a specific vision of social justice, and similar processes are taking place across the country. This process is called gender mainstreaming and it threatens academic freedom at all Swedish universities.

At first glance, this doesn’t sound so bad, does it? For who is opposed to gender equality? In Sweden, only a select few. But gender mainstreaming involves much more than that. And in practice, the concept of gender equality in this context masks a much more radical and profound process.

In the appropriation directions for 2016, the government tasked all of Sweden’s universities to “develop a plan for how the institution intends to develop gender mainstreaming.” The National Secretariat for Gender Research was been given the task of  leading the work. It was created by the social democratic government in 1998 to further research in sex and gender and it is led by gender studies researchers. The second in charge, Fredrik Bondestam, wrote in his dissertation about gender inequality that the gender-aware were fighting against a “privileged elite of Swedish-speaking, white, protestant heretics totally uninterested in being informed of their own structural violence.” Just the other day, when confronted by this quote, he said he still stood by it and that it had a “very beautiful wording.”

People like Bondestam are in charge of mainstreaming their gender ideology—even though their ideology is far from mainstream—if you ask regular Swedes.

A photo taken from the Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research.

For their new task to gender mainstream universities, the secretariat has travelled across the country, holding lectures and workshops for administrators and teaching staff. On May 15 this year, colleges and universities submitted their plans to promote gender equality, which have been strongly influenced by the secretariat’s instructions.

While it might sound like it, gender mainstreaming is not just about tackling discrimination. Whereas anti-discrimination efforts aim to create equal opportunity for all, gender mainstreaming is about “reorganising existing activities” and “changing the power structures that give discriminatory effects.”

What power structures is this about? When you read the equality plans that the universities have written, you get the impression that Swedish universities are characterised by overt misogyny, racism, ableism, heteronormativity and other afflictions. In any event, that’s how the universities describe themselves.

At Uppsala University, ranked number 29 on the Times Higher Education (THE) list of Europe’s best universities (2017), they declare that their “goal is that as far as possible work on gender mainstreaming from an intersectional perspective.” So what does intersectionality mean? Imagine a pyramid. At the top there are white, able-bodied, heterosexual men. They are considered to have the greatest power and are therefore considered the most privileged. From this position different power structures flow and intersect. Men repress women, whites oppress non-whites, non-disabled repress disabled, and heterosexuals oppress LGBTQ-people. It might not be a conscious oppression, but nevertheless the norms created around white, able-bodied, heterosexual men are oppressive. The oppression is exerted through diffuse power structures that permeate everything we do and think. That’s the theory.

Here’s how the psychology professor Jonathan Haidt characterised the intersectionality ideology when I interviewed him a year ago:

The first thing you do when you interact with people is that you find out which category they belong to. White? That’s bad. Male? That’s bad. Straight? It’s bad. It is called intersectionality. You add privilege points based primarily on racial background, gender, and sexual orientation. Basically, it is a form of racism. It’s a form of intellectual cancer because the whole idea of universities is that we’re supposed to learn to judge each other by our ideas and words, not by what categories we happen to belong to.

Several universities report in their equality plans that they will work with ‘norm critique’. Both language and research are mainly, according to these theories, production and reproduction of power. And the purpose of research should be to show and break down this power. Therefore, norm critique is considered central, as norms are by definition power structures that oppress marginalised groups. Different power structures cooperate to marginalise and repress different groups in an intersectional way. In this framework, the purpose of research is to understand these power structures and deconstruct them in order to build a fairer world free from oppressive norms. Again, this is not a fringe phenomenon. It’s now entering the core of the universities through gender mainstreaming.

One would think that the universities would have carried out an investigation to determine the extent to which the oppressive power structures they purport to exist permeate their organisations and student bodies. (Generally, when you contend that something exists, you need to prove it). But the National Secretariat for Gender Research recommends against this.

In their feedback, those who have surveyed the situation at their own universities are mildly reprimanded: “There may be educational and knowledge benefits of making local mappings of identified problems, but generally speaking it’s not relevant to present already known structural injustices.” No further investigations are needed. The secretariat already knows what society looks like and the reasons for it.

A number of universities established that gender perspectives should be integrated into all education strands. In the Department of political science at Stockholm university it’s mandatory to include gender studies at all levels of the education and to include an equal number of female authors in the reading lists. At Malmö University, it means, among other things, that parts of the education of a specialist nurse will be earmarked for gender studies.

At the Karolinska Institute – ranked 10th in Europe according to THE – they tie themselves into knots in an attempt to make the gender scientists of the secretariat happy without violating the science of medicine at the same time. In explaining why gender perspectives must be included in the education of future physicians they state quite reasonably that “research that does not take into account differences in biology and pathology between the sexes…may affect the development of medicines and care.” Yet on the same page they also state that they aim to “incorporate more gender-conscious and/or norm-critical literature in education.” In other words, they will try to use gender studies — where gender is viewed as a social construction — while at the same time investigating biological sex differences and sex effects in medical treatment. Reconciling these two perspectives might prove challenging, to say the least.

Malmö University will review the allocation of research funding so that they don’t result in “unequal consequences”. The equality here is not about giving equal opportunities. No uneven distribution between gender categories is acceptable, even though prior interests, preferences and aptitudes may differ. The heads of the departments must annually make “gender-aware and norm-critical surveys and analyses of the allocation of assignments, time and economic resources between men and women.” Everything must be gender mainstreamed: “Education plans, curricula, learning objectives, local degree goals, course guides, course literature, teaching methods and educational information are reviewed and revised based on national gender equality policy goals.”

At the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) – ranked 83rd in Europe according to THE – they have taken it one step further by setting up a special inspection body called the Equality Office, with at least three full-time positions. In addition, new faculty services have been created in the field of gender and organisation research. The work is led by the Vice Principal of Equality and Basic Values, Professor Anna Wahl, and will have its own budget. What does a vice principal of basic values even do? It brings to mind some kind of theological activity rather than a scientific activity, performed at a university.

Generally, KTH’s plan, to a very small extent, is about gender equality, and to a very large extent it is about sanctioning a theory of power structures according to intersectionality and gender studies. Furthermore, its only stated definition of an equality analysis is “about visualising the problems that arise from the fact that we divide humanity into two categories and ascribe one category more value than the other.” The conclusion is thus already done before the analysis is even made. It’s unclear how the engineers trained at KTH benefit from this. No such evaluation has been done.

Sometimes one hears that it is exaggerated how far the Swedish state’s gender equality work has gone. Or that phenomena such as norm critique and intersectionality are peripheral. This is not the case, which the gender mainstreaming of all of Sweden’s universities shows.

Is there even evidence that norm criticism and anti-prejudice training actually improve education? This question is not asked by either the Secretariat for Gender Research or by the institutions themselves. This is not about improving education. Nor is it about conducting better research. Instead of dealing with actual gender equality, in the sense of combating discrimination, a small agency like the National Secretariat of Gender Research has interpreted its mission much more broadly. All college staff must be educated in the right gender perspectives which are now renamed as “competencies.” So one is either competent or incompetent in their perspective. If you want to teach or research in a university you either you accept the directives or you don’t. So what happens next?

Illustration by Erin Bonsteel

I asked Erik Ringmar if all this was really such a bad thing. Why should university teachers not also take responsibility to try to create a socially just society?

He answered that there are a lot of problems in society that the universities can help to analyse. The best and only way to do this is to maintain the integrity of the intellectual activities that are undertaken within these institutions. I am right-wing, Erik is left-wing. But our politics should not matter. The important thing is the integrity of the academic process. If destroyed, then the core of the university is destroyed.

Control processes, budgets, allocation of research funds, reading lists, curriculums—all aspects of university life are being mainstreamed by the National Secretariat’s gender studies ideology. Meanwhile nothing has been written about it in our Swedish newspapers. The few times it’s been mentioned in the parliament, it has only been in positive terms by Social Democrats boasting about their own policies.

Why is everyone so quiet? Is it because they agree with what’s happening? Or is this deafening silence driven by fear?

The universities’ mission is to seek the truth. That is not possible without academic freedom. Right now Swedish universities are willingly turning themselves into a commissariat for a one-sided and simplistic vision of social justice. And when the search for truth and the ideology of social justice collide, which do you think is likely to win?


Ivar Arpi is an editorial writer at Svenska Dagbladet in Sweden. Follow him on Twitter @Ivarpi 

32 Comments

  1. Carl Sageman says

    The article talks frequently about gender equality. However, I believe there are many interpretations to what this actually means. I’ve even seen people use the term “true equality” in a bid to avoid the frequent misnomers that frequent media outlets.

    If somebody uses the term equality, they should specify equal opportunity, equal rights or equal outcomes.

    It may have been my distracted reading, however, I don’t recall the significance of mandating equal outcomes. How far does this extend? Does society mandate equal numbers of male and female vets, knowing that even in Sweden, females dominate the industry? Do we put incompetent men or uninterested men to fill quotas?

    The Quillette weekly summary for this week includes a study that shows more male mammoths died from risk taking than female mammoths. At what point do we go back to recognising the significance of biology in outcomes, instead of forcing “equality”? I can’t quantity it. However, it is reasonable to assume society is suffering significantly from this social experiment of “equality”. Birth rates in all western countries are an excellent indicator that something is fundamentally wrong.

    • Im a student at Luleå University of Technology (Sweden) and here they have arranged days, for higschool girls to get them intrestead in techonlogy, to get the number up. and have “man days at kindergarden” to get men to become kindergarden teatchers. becous they FEEL its apropirate…
      but yes, they are trying, despretly, to get 50/50 in “important playces”, like CEO, teacthers, and like, but not as important with plumbers, garbigeman etc…

      • Peter says

        I’m an alumni of the same university, and I don’t really mind those promotion days. They don’t constitute any form of enforcement, and might rectify some conscious or unconscious biases when it comes to professions and their gender propriety. If there is some residual permeating pressure in society that discourages some group of people from going into a certain field, I don’t see a problem from trying to counteract it as long as individuals end up where they fit most naturally.

  2. Peter Kriens says

    What is the (international) mechanism that leaves studies like intersectionality beyond criticism? Anything I’ve read in this area looks extremely unscientific, and sometimes the basic tenets of science are openly rejected. Is this that it is so very hard to criticise people that present themselves as oppressed victims? It is the same with the #metoo discussion. Except for cases involving violence it is hard not to think ‘get a life!’. However, publicly reacting like that feels like kicking someone who is already down. Is this the reason it gets so little feedback? Or is it just cowardice, becoming a Twitter target and socially lynched? Or both?

    • Michiel says

      Indeed it’s baffling. If these are such fringe views (as in, not really born out of or accepted by the mainstream) and have so little (if any) evidence, how come these people wield so much power, especially in universities? It seems that in a matter of a few years this ideology (radical postmodernism/intersectionality/social justice) has managed to completely take over all universities in Sweden (not to mention colleges in the US, the UK and probably in many other places) with virtually no pushback. The ideology has been written into law in Canada (Bill C16) and Canadian law firms will soon have to write some kind of document basically pledging their allegiance to this ideology or lose their license.
      It seems like some kind of virus that has found a unique weak spot in human psychology that makes it virtually immune from criticism.
      One can only hope that universities signing up for this idiocy will soon find themselves tumbling down that Times Higher Education list.

      • Eric the Half Bee says

        It really is bizarre that the boring, opaque writings of an American academic seem to have been adopted as the foundational texts of a new state religion in Sweden. If people want to read Judith Butler that’s fine by me; we should be free to choose how we want to waste our own time. But making them compulsory is an act of cruelty.

    • Steven says

      Well, that’s the problem with modern social science. It has moved far away from empiricism towards a more elaborate linguistic and qualitative take on studying society and social phenomena. Coupled with a postmodern theory of knowledge where no absolute and objective truths are accepted (since all knowledge is constructed by us humans in a temporal social context, therefore no social contructs are more “persistent” or “true” than other), we arrive at todays problem with gender and poststructuralist “science”.

      They are fully satisfied with identifying what they see as a problem, a structure, and how it creates a problem for society as they see it. As such they are beyond objective criticism. It’s not even a matter they are overly concerned with. It’s their truth, their analyses, their solutions. It is a structure concerning us all, and they analyse it for us non-believers also since we are a part of that structure. And since they argue from a point of universal ethics, moral and equality, you cannot argue against it lest you are being misogynist, racist, or any other bad label. You are concerned and drawn into their vortex whether you want it or not.

      Gender equality and intersectionalism sets a trap you cannot possibly dodge. That’s what makes it non-scientific in a Popperian way (cannot present potentially falsifying criteria). There will always be victims, hence the analysis and problem will always be true regardless of context and time. And how can anyone object against another persons perception of being opressed? We are not speaking about facts here, remember we are stuck in their world of postmodern subjective truths. The perceived is the only thing that matters.

      • K J Aldous says

        “no social contructs are more “persistent” or “true” than (any) other”

        It would be fascinating to watch a parade of postmodernists arguing this proposition with an array of ulama.

  3. Indeed it’s baffling. If these are such fringe views (as in, not really born out of or accepted by the mainstream) and have so little (if any) evidence, how come these people wield so much power, especially in universities?

    It’s only about 20 years since politicians, social workers and medical professionals across the world were convinced that Satanic Ritual Abuse was a global phenomenon orchestrated by a Jewish concentration camp survivor called Dr Greenberg. Many of those people are still in power. A later generation have learnt nothing from their mistakes.

    We aren’t just dealing with an intellectual fad of intersectionality, we are dealing with a cult that will not tolerate anyone questioning their core beliefs.

      • yandoodan says

        I don’t think you can call it a conspiracy when everyone is doing it in public.

  4. Social “scientists” should include themselves as an identity in their power hierarchies. They’d then disappear up there own arse.

  5. Frank says

    The roof is about to crash in on those who insist on a purely environmental explanation of all sorts of ethnic differences, not just intelligence. Since the decoding of the genome, it has been securely established that race is not a social construct, evolution continued long after humans left Africa along different paths in different parts of the world, and recent evolution involves cognitive as well as physiological functioning.

    The best summary of the evidence is found in the early chapters of Nicholas Wade’s recent book, “A Troublesome Inheritance.” We’re not talking about another 20 years before the purely environmental position is discredited, but probably less than a decade. What happens when a linchpin of political correctness becomes scientifically untenable?

    The PC problem facing us down the road is the increasing rate at which the technical literature reports new links between specific genes and specific traits. Soon there will be dozens, then hundreds, of such links being reported each year. The findings will be tentative and often disputed—a case in point is the so-called warrior gene that encodes monoamine oxidase A and may encourage aggression. But so far it has been the norm, not the exception, that variations in these genes show large differences across races. We don’t yet know what the genetically significant racial differences will turn out to be, but we have to expect that they will be many. It is unhelpful for social scientists and the media to continue to proclaim that “race is a social construct” in the face of this looming rendezvous with reality.

  6. John Brave says

    The swedes are following the program perfectly. Twenty years from now there won’t be anything significant left from what brought these idiots to where they are now.

    The intersectional feminists and SJWs are working hard to dismantle the Swedish society and strip it from anything resembling a coherent social. They’re working hard to pave the way to those who will take over for them and eradicate them.

    They’re importing Muslim men in numbers big enough to destabilize their society and change their future from the screwed up feminist society they’ve built to a male dominated Islamic one.

    • Duane Smith says

      Well said John. I’m a Canadian in Stockholm watching in amazement.

  7. When scientific disciplines, ideas and opinions are legislated by ‘secretariats’, and people have their careers impeded or destroyed because they hold views that are deemed ‘incorrect’ by the misguided and ill-informed standards of a power-hungry, ideologically alienated elite, it’s a sign that institutionalized bureaucracies driven by unscientific, unfalsifiable, malicious, and ultimately resentful and murderous ideological motives (as the historical record tragically shows) have encroached themselves in the public sphere to a degree that should worry anyone who values freedom of thought and expression as the cornerstones of liberal democracy that they are.

    Ideology doesn’t know how to play or pretend. It is never content with neither reality, nor with an imperfect human nature that it despises and desperately tries to replace with its abstract and perfect, and hence inhuman self. It doesn’t tolerate doubt, and sure as hell does not tolerate nonconformity. This ideological expansion will not stop on its own accord, but only get worse, more hungry and more powerful with time. The ultimate result will not be the egalitarian Utopia that so many have chased since the French Revolution and that has cost the lives of so many tens of millions of people. If this is allowed to run its course freely, the certain end stop is totalitarianism in the proper sense of the word: total control over language, emotions, relationships, instincts, fantasies and thoughts, all condensed into one -and only one- possible interpretation of reality — the ‘correct’ one. Not today, to be sure; perhaps not tomorrow — but how long a time-span are we willing to contemplate to prevent such a scenario from materializing? Ten years, twenty? And once we are in 2040 – what then? How much gas are we to allow in the coalmine before we take the canary’s death seriously? Or more aptly: how many canaries do we have to watch suffocate before we realize that the air is turning deadly? How early a warning is timely enough? Will it be possible to pull the handbrake and turn around, once big data surveillance and weaponized, self-replicating A.I.’s run on Big Brother’s ideological algorithm? Or are we all to sit idly by, convincing ourselves that ‘those things don’t happen’, even though the most vital lesson we should draw from the last century is that unthinkable things do indeed happen when large enough numbers of people embrace the moral superiority bestowed upon them by an autistically estranged ideology?

    This madness has ceased to be an entertaining intellectual oddity too long ago, and there’s too much at stake for anyone with a shred of appreciation for individual liberty to watch passively as the whole civilizational fabric eats itself from within, only to indulge the ideological cravings of a few. I really believe, like many others, that we are at a terrifying crossroad of world history, where every individual act counts and the outcome could very well be catastrophic in ways we might have never seen before. And while Ringmar’s willingness to stand up for his principles gives me hope, the general trend definitely does not.

  8. Harrowing stuff, but there’s light at the end of the tunnel. Ponderous ideas have a tendency of collapsing under their own weight. That said, readers would enjoy this plucky little comedy, which is thematically linked: https://vimeo.com/187307901

  9. Shawna says

    Butler is a professor of rhetoric and communication. Under the guise of “gender studies, she makes claims and purports to teach about biology, psychology, psychiatry, sexology, sociology, history, anthropology, philosophy, law, and economics. But she has no special expertise, training or credentials in those subjects.

    • Maria P. says

      Well, exactly this is what makes her so valuable! (as propagandist)

  10. “Students who want to learn about the emergence of fascism at the turn of the 20th century need to apply to another university, and all this at a time when right-wing reaction is on the rise again in Europe.”

    I don’t understand this. Fascism is a left-wing ideology.

    • yandoodan says

      It’s neither Left nor Right but Platonic. It reifies Race as organic and whole, made up of humans the way a body is made of cells. Of course Race is just an arbitrary abstraction; you can define it anyway you want.

      Marxism reifies Class in the same way. Their massive fight to the death, leaving tens of millions of bodies behind, was over which abstraction should be reified.

      And postmodernists reify the abstraction of Intersectionality…

  11. Lorry says

    If there needs to be 40% female authors does the reverse also hold true. So should a feminism class have at least 40% male authors?

    In a weird way I sometimes think that the increasing number of immigrants coming to countries like Sweden may actually be an antidote to this nonsense. I often hear the elite in countries throughout Africa and the Middle-East express a much more coherent and rational view than many of new new liberal elite in the west

  12. Diversity™ means everyone MUST think alike about the agenda of ‘diversity™’
    Freedom now from this enforced, coercive, parasitic, anti-White, genocidal diversity. Its a crime, not a ‘policy option’

  13. The mainstreaming of gender ideology is similar to injecting a virus into Swedish society and the Swedes becoming slowly poisoned by it. New generations of Swedes will ostracize free speech, white males will be sybolically castrated, and muslim rapists will be elevated to erotic cult status in women’s imaginations, because white males will be mostly feminized in time. Transgendered will run the highest government offices, because they are perceived as the least priviledged class. Gender reassignments will be possible after age 3, and state financed. Swedes will moved from a rational based to emotional based education system. Many of the classics will be eliminated from schools and replaced by intersectional feminist dystopian science fiction novels that favor lesbianism over traditional family. Ethnic adoption agencies and test tube babies will be institutionalized an state run to ensure racial quotas among lesbian and gay families which will become the political majority because it makes sense to manage politically correct families that way. Sweden will be the new model for the West.

  14. This behavior should be considered a pathogen as it seeks to destroy all western thought and progress.

    Either the people promoting this plan prove what they say is true or they shut up and get real lives.

    Personally I see a greater threat. One that requires constraints on human behavior that are pathological so that A.I. can take hold of everyday functions.

  15. yandoodan says

    I recommend that Professor Ringmar use the Judo approach to oppose the overwhelming power of the machine. Go against it and in crushes you. Yield to it instead, and let its own power and weight pull it down.

    For instance, Prof. Ringmar could have assigned a particular long, dense, and incoherent Judith Butler book — preferably a very expensive one. He could then assign a long essay with a short deadline, and do so without any classroom discussion or guidance. And say, “This is a requirement of the university, and It is a very good requirement, as Butler is a socially significant writer and you should agree with her.” And so get all of your students to hate Butler.

    I expect that this approach might spread even to teachers deeply sympathetic to the administration’s goals. Nobody likes busybody bureaucrats telling them how to teach their own classes.

  16. Lasse says

    Keep preaching that good shit, Ivar!

    I’m a student at the University of Gothenburg and this concerns me a great deal, since it directly affects the level of my education. I read you articles about this in SvD and heard you on Aron Flam’s podcast, DC, and I’m just waiting for an excuse to bring it up in front of everyone.

    Funny that you left out how the secretariat, an organization devoted to gender-balance, is itself gender-unbalanced what with its 7 out 40 employees as male contra female. And just for a goof I looked up the reading list for the gender-science course here at my school and found that only 5 of its 29 authors were male; which I don’t have problem with since I’m against quotas. But I despise hypocrisy.

    And my thanks to Quillette for publishing texts like this.

  17. I rather like the “You must include Judith Butler” idea. Were I teaching the course I would include her.

    “This is a person who has nothing to do with the material I am teaching. We will now pass this hour in silence while you think about what it means to “include Judith Butler”.”

    And then I would sit down and Judith Butler would be included.

  18. Pingback: Judith Butler sågar statsvetarna i Lund: ”krav på könskvoterad kurslitteratur strider mot akademisk frihet” »

Comments are closed.