Category: Libertarian

Every Circumcision Includes Affirmable Objective Harm

Disclosure: I am the author of the first link in this post.

The AAP has released its revised statement on non-therapeutic male circumcision, which provides the contradictory conclusions that the possible benefits outweigh the risks (without mention of the costs) and that not everyone will conclude that the possible benefits outweigh the risks for their family. Another prominent libertarian has chimed in on non-therapeutic infant male circumcision, this time with a different take than Doug Mataconis’ flawed non-libertarian advocacy from last week. Today, George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein posted on the revision at The Volokh Conspiracy. He engages in a better approach, but his conclusion is also wrong.

At the risk of provoking the ire of anti-circumcision zealots (you know who are), I thought I’d mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics, reversing a previous neutral stance, is now endorsing male circumcision based on a review of recent scientific evidence.

Zealots. If that’s the word choice, then describe the opposition correctly. I oppose non-therapeutic genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) on non-consenting individuals. That is different than being merely anti-circumcision. I don’t care if someone has himself circumcised. I care very much if someone is circumcised without medical need and without his consent. This is based on the same principle and understanding of facts that forms my opposition to an individual having her genitals cut without medical need and without her consent.

I undertook a reasonably thorough review of the existing evidence myself, frankly with a bias toward finding that circumcision was overall harmful. I was aware that circumcision, like several other medical procedures (think episiotomy during childbirth) was encouraged for decades by an unthinking medical establishment that didn’t undertake the research needed to support its recommendations. I was perfectly willing to believe that circumcision had few if any health benefits, had significant costs, and should be done only for religious reasons if at all.

I believe that. However, it implies a validity for the decision to circumcise a healthy child that is illegitimate. Proxy consent for surgery must start with medical need, not the possibility of positive benefits. The subjective value of the pursued speculative benefits rests with the decision-maker, not the individual who will live with the surgical alteration to his body. The only objective outcome he receives is the unavoidable physical harm from the surgical intervention.

I couldn’t find such evidence. Instead, I found that it has small but real health benefits, and that there is no sound evidence of reduced sexual function (I know, tons of nerve endings, blah blah blah, but where is the evidence that on average it makes sex less enjoyable? Studies on men circumcised as adults don’t provide such evidence). I’m not sure that would be enough to lead me to circumcise my own son (mostly because of squeamishness) [if I weren’t Jewish, and had a son], but I think it’s an easy call if you plan to raise your son Jewish; the last thing you want is for your kid to decide at age 20 or whatever that his religion demands circumcision, and to have to undergo it then, when the risks and pain are much worse. (If there was sound evidence of harm from circumcision, that would be a different story).

I recognize those possible health benefits. I agree they’re small, which I’m glad is stated in Prof. Bernstein’s post. But there are possible flaws, even outside potential methodological flaws. The obvious ethical flaw is declaring results found with adult volunteers should then be applied at parental request to healthy infants who do not consent.

The non-obvious physical flaw is that infant and adult circumcision are not quite the same procedure. In infancy, the foreskin is fused to the glans. To circumcise a child, his foreskin must be separated from the rest of his penis. The bond formed by the synechia must be broken, which may inflict additional scarring on the glans of the infant. The circumciser must estimate how much skin to remove and work with an obviously much smaller penis. Too little or too much may be removed, assuming the circumcised is even pleased with his parents making his decision. The circumciser also does not know whether to leave or remove the frenulum. (It is usually removed.) These concerns are minimized or non-applicable when waiting until adulthood. There are trade-offs in both directions, not just the alleged preferablity of infant circumcision.

The obvious physical flaw is more apparent. Circumcision inflicts objective harm in every case. The normal, healthy foreskin is removed. Nerve endings are severed. (The absence of evidence on how that affects sexual pleasure is not an argument in favor of infant circumcision. Prof. Bernstein’s position incorrectly assumes it favors his analysis.) The frenulum may be removed. Scarring remains. And the risk of further complications exists in every circumcision. Some males will experience complications, including possibly severe complications. That is all sound evidence of harm from every circumcision.

The “right to bodily integrity” argument so popular in Europe these days doesn’t sway me. What if your kid is born with six fingers, or with an ugly mole on his face, neither of which are causing harm beyond the aesthetic, and removal of either of which will cause some pain? Does his “right to bodily integrity” mean that you have to wait until he’s sixteen to let him decide whether to remove the appendage? Those strike me as harder cases than circumcision, given that circumcision actually provides some medical benefits. But I think it would be absurd to ban, or even discourage, removal.

This compares either abnormalities or subjective cosmetic opinions to the normal foreskin. I think it would be less compelling to ban intervention on children in those non-therapeutic cases, as opposed to the clear need to prohibit non-therapeutic child circumcision, but I don’t think it’s automatically absurd to intervene in those other cases. Still, different opinions are possible. Is Cindy Crawford’s mole a cosmetic problem for her? Gattaca has a thought-provoking take on extra digits with “Impromptu for 12 Fingers“. There can be unexpected benefits from doing nothing, from leaving the individual his choice.

The crux is to what extent should we value the right to physical integrity more than the possible medical benefits. It’s shouldn’t be a debate when considering that the harm is objective and the benefits are not. It is more than an unprovable moral notion. Most males will never need the possible benefits cited for non-therapeutic circumcision. And we already recognize the legal harm to females for comparable and lesser forms of harm from non-therapeutic genital cutting. (Yes, there are disparities in the two. They are the same in principle and other important aspects.)

If there was sound evidence that circumcision was affirmatively harmful, I think governments (and busybodies) would have every right to discourage it, including by law for minors, regardless of religious sensitivities. Given that the evidence points in the opposite direction,
the movement in Germany and elsewhere to ban circumcision is unconscionable.

That evidence exists. Every circumcision involves objective harm. The science upon which the AAP relies is essentially the subset that supports circumcision, and which is often barely applicable to the United States (e.g. possibly reduced female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations with low circumcision rates). The lack of need – the health of the child – is also science. Less invasive, more effective preventions and treatments for the ailments circumcision may reduce also constitute science. Condoms, antibiotics, Gardasil, soap, and water are science. To suggest a conclusion can be objective on this net evaluation is absurd because that question for each individual is subjective, as evidenced by the AAP’s own contradictory statement.

The decision to circumcise healthy children because doing so might help them is not libertarian. As I wrote in Friday’s post, let’s temporarily assume what is not true, that the foreskin has no purpose. “It’s mine” is sufficient. Even within a limited view of the right to physical integrity where objective harm is not viewed as harm, one’s body is clearly one’s own property. The onus is not properly on the person who may not want his property taken to accept his loss because his property was taken with good intentions for an exchange in value he may not want.

Liberty, But Only If Your Parents Let You Have It

I have no problem with the label libertarian, even when it’s conflated with the Libertarian Party. I have a problem with being associated with what passes for thinking on the rights of children among too many self-proclaimed libertarians. Somehow the libertarian view for so many shakes down to something equivalent to children as parental property. This is most easily seen when the topic turns to male circumcision. So it is again. In response to charges filed against a rabbi/mohel in Bavaria following the recent court decision in Cologne declaring that non-therapeutic circumcision of a child violates the child’s rights to physical integrity and self-determination, Doug Mataconis writes at Outside the Beltway (links in original):

There’s also been a bizarre movement growing against circumcision itself here in the United States and in Europe. Just last year, for example, a referendum that would’ve banned circumcision in the City of San Francisco was scheduled to appear on the November 2011 ballot before being removed. The motivations for this version of the anti-circumcision movement seems to be something similar to what the Judges in Cologne stated, that it was some kind of assault about a party who is unable to grant consent. …

Surgically removing a normal, healthy, functioning body part from an individual who does not consent should be recognized as battery, yes. That is not bizarre. It’s merely extending the usual rational standard for non-therapeutic surgical intervention on healthy children to male genitals.

… Andrew Sullivan, for example, contends that infant circumcision is an assault on infant boys. Left out of the argument, though, is the fact that parents have been long assumed to be able to competently make medical decisions for their minor children. …

Except there are limits, including a specific limit on the option for parents to make “medical” (i.e. non-therapeutic) surgical decisions for the genitals of their minor children. USC § 116 – Female genital mutilation clearly establishes conditions upon which we ignore this alleged competence. If non-therapeutic genital cutting falls within the realm of making “medical” decisions for a child as a parental right, then 18 USC § 116 infringes on this supposed parental right. If this is about parental rights rather than individual rights, the child, whether male or female, would be irrelevant to the law. It isn’t. It’s about the harm to the child. Section (b) makes it clear that all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors is illegal, including any cutting analogous to or less harmful than male circumcision. Section (c) demonstrates that no parental justification will be accepted for this intervention on their daughter(s). The primary consideration becomes whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not this:

… Leaving that argument aside, I would think that any ban on circumcision in the United States would, because of the First Amendment, have to include an exemption for Jews and Muslims who consider the procedure a requirement of their religion.

Because boys don’t have the same basic human rights as everyone else, at least for the physical integrity of their normal, healthy genitals? Eugene Volokh’s parental and religious rights posts during last year’s San Francisco ballot initiative identifies a plausible response to this. Again, the correct question is whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not why parents might choose it for non-therapeutic reasons.

On the question of harm, the evidence is quite clear. Circumcision inflicts harm every time. The individual loses his foreskin. He has nerve endings within his penis severed. He may lose his frenulum. He will have a scar. There is also the risk of complications. Some males will suffer those, and some subset will suffer horrible outcomes. The mortality rate from non-therapeutic child circumcision is very low, thankfully, but it isn’t zero. Treating individuals as statistics is hardly a libertarian position.

Next, he quotes an ad hominem attack by Jonathan Tobin:

Circumcision opponents may claim they are not anti-Semitic, especially since their campaign also targets Muslims. But there is little doubt that the driving force behind this movement is resentment toward Jews and a willingness to go public with sentiments that long simmered beneath the surface in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Just last week, French scholar Michel Gurfinkiel wrote on his blog that anti-Semitism has increased in France since the Toulouse massacre in March. Since then violence has grown, fed by what he calls a rejection of Jews and Judaism. In France, these sentiments are fed by the Jew hatred openly expressed by the expanding Muslim population. Throughout Europe, the demonization of Israel hasn’t just increased hostility to the Jewish state; it has served as an excuse for anti-Semitism to go mainstream for the first time since World War Two. Just as some claim circumcision critics aren’t intrinsically anti-Semitic, there are those who blame anti-Semitism on Israeli policies. But when you add all these factors together what you get is an undeniable upsurge in Jew-hatred.

There is significant doubt that resentment is the driving force. I won’t speak for Germany, although I think the court’s ruling was not based in religious animosity. The ethical human rights-based case against non-therapeutic circumcision exists on its own. It’s clear, based in the basic rights to physical bodily integrity and self-determination. The ability to find instances of anti-Semitism does not discredit that case or the general movement to restrict non-therapeutic circumcision to those who choose it for themselves. Where anti-Semitism occurs, and it unfortunately does, it discredits the individual purveyor, not the movement as a whole. And such instances should be denounced without ad hominem against anyone who shares only an opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting individuals.

Mataconis’ response to Tobin’s charge:

If that’s true, then it is a quite troublesome development. Even leaving this element out of it, though, there’s something troublesome about this entire affair. Circumcision has been an accepted practice in Western societies for centuries …

That’s interesting but proves nothing. History provides plenty of examples of rights being violated for a long time. The rights are no less violated. Non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes guaranteed physical harm to the child in pursuit of his parents’ preference(s). It’s the objective versus the subjective.

… and, in the case of two religions, it isn’t just an elective medical procedure, it is a requirement of their faith. …

Being a requirement of Judaism and a recommendation in Islam are relevant, but they are not the first question in this context. The circumcision is being imposed on someone. It’s an odd conception of free
dom that says imposing surgery on someone else is an individual right within religious freedom. Under the proposed public policy stance, religion would have to adapt. That expectation is no different from the numerous declarations in religious texts that we do not permit in civil law. Religion deserves no special exemption. The protection required is for individuals to choose circumcision for their own bodies, not for others.

… The arguments of the circumcision opponents strike me as being little more than ridiculous nonsense that, for some, has turned into some kind of weird cult of the foreskin. As far as I’m concerned, parents are perfectly capable of making this decision for their sons and the state really has no business getting involved in at all. When you bring the element of religion into it, state interference becomes even more problematic. One would hope that the government in Berlin will intervene and put an end to the nonsense that the judges in Cologne started.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual violates basic human rights. That isn’t ridiculous nonsense. We apply it completely to females. We don’t apply it to males. Instead, it’s easier to smear with words like cult and fetish. Fine, if that’s the standard, we should start telling activists against female genital cutting/mutilation that they’re spouting ridiculous nonsense that is some kind of weird cult of the clitoris? We wouldn’t because there we recognize the facts. With circumcision we forget to apply the same standard that protects the property interest of the individual. For reasons. That makes no sense.

It’s certainly not within a reasonable understanding of libertarianism. For anarchists, sure, opposition to the state becomes the overriding goal. But if one assumes a state to be legitimate with a specific interest in protecting the rights of its citizens, then it’s legitimate for the state to prohibit this form of possibly unwanted harm. That is the approach that recognizes humans rather than statistics. (To hope that politicians will step in to reverse a judge is a foolish action to endorse.) Parents don’t just circumcise their sons. They effectively circumcise the autonomous adult he will become. Proxy consent based on anything other than clear medical need is insufficient to permit that.

**********

Post Script: In the comments to his post, Mataconis responded with a standard trope:

Fine. Then if you have a son, don’t get him circumcised, that’s your choice.

Treating children as property is not libertarian. The correct formulation is “If you don’t want to be circumcised, don’t have yourself circumcised”. That’s the method to protect individual preferences, not the illegitimate force of individual preferences on another. Shared DNA is not a defense.

That flows into a later comment:

What is the medical benefit the foreskin provides?

To the silly question, it protects the glans and provides sexual sensitivity. But let’s assume neither is true. “It’s mine” is sufficient. The onus is not properly on the person who doesn’t want his property taken to explain why his property shouldn’t be taken. Or, at least, that’s what I thought libertarians believed.

All Your Citizens Are Belong to Us

Thomas Ricks has an op-ed in today’s New York Times on reinstating a peace-time draft. It’s embarrassing in many ways, but two especially:

And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

Great, can we implement this now? That means no taxes, as well, right? I know, hahahaha, of course not. A straw man dipped in gasoline is easily burned.

But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.

Three words: starve the beast. With the national debt standing at $15,883,106,924,772.24 and counting, when can we put that to rest? Politicians do not operate on logic. And the majority of voters would still not be participants whenever our government waged war. The cannon fodder would still be a minority to be wielded by the majority. They just wouldn’t be volunteers any more. That’s not an improvement.

The ACA and the Future of Infant Circumcision

I’ve made the argument that a government-run single-payer health care system in America would not automatically result in non-therapeutic infant circumcision rates comparable to other Western nations (e.g. United Kingdom), probably most directly here. I stand by that for the reasons I’ve stated. But now that the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court, I want to explore a possible (though unlikely) unintended consequence of encouraging the government to control more health care.

As I understand it, the government has now been given what amounts to unlimited power to incentivize (i.e. compel) activity to achieve a public policy goal where some (or many) may prefer inactivity. Congress merely needs to establish a “Do X or Pay T” regulatory scheme. Many, although not a majority of Americans, approve of this for health care. This is presumably a statement on the value of the goal rather than an explicit endorsement of the means. But the means matter.

Extending this thinking, what now prevents the Congress from implementing “Circumcise your newborn son or Pay a Tax”? It now has that power. And the logic is no different. Congressman Brad Sherman endorsed the political thinking that would encourage such a policy during last year’s discussion of the San Francisco ballot initiative. He declared that “Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents”.

I do not believe this is politically likely. With any extension of this newly-expanded power, Congress will need the political cover to pass a new tax. They swore the ACA wasn’t a tax, though, so lying is an option. They’re politicians, after all. It would still face challenges. But it is possible, and we’ve seen the lengths to which politicians will fall over themselves to avoid offending the status quo on non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

I think my argument holds up. If nothing else, the ACA almost certainly slows future progress on ending this violation of male children. Cultural circumcision has a new god in the perceived¹ reduction in future health care costs. There are means available within government control to pursue that. If we get further “reform”, it’s likely to offer even more control to the government. That is a problem. This seems obvious to me. As long as the government has a power and a willingness to ignore facts, the possibility of consequences exists, both intended and unintended. We should be careful which methods we endorse.

**********

¹ The time value of money must be included. A dollar spent today on health care is not the same as a dollar that might be spent twenty, thirty, or more years from today. The number of adult circumcisions needed would have to be greater than it is to justify this public purse argument. It still wouldn’t be ethical to circumcise healthy infants, of course.

Accountability to Those Who Pay the Buck-O’-Five

Ken at Popehat has a perfectly concise take-down of LZ Granderson’s ridiculous CNN essay arguing against seeking too much information from our government about “Fast and Furious“. I won’t be able to say it better than Ken, so here are his words. (And if you’re not reading Popehat, correct that in your RSS reader.)

But to go much beyond the criticism of these men runs the risk of learning that this great nation of ours is heavily involved in doing some things that are not so great.

It would be nice to see this as a wry comment on American willingness to overlook lawbreaking by the government when it is committed (at least nominally) in service of goals of which we approve.

But the straight-faced reading is too similar to what I have come to expect from the media to be certain of my hoped-for satirical reading. Right now scandals over both Fast and Furious and the government response to it are being spun in many places as a cynical partisan obsession. I have not the shadow of the doubt that many of the loudest critics of the government have partisan motives. But if we dismiss criticism of government misbehavior because of partisan motivations, we’ll never entertain significant criticism of the government. We’ll always have partisanship. We can’t let it be an excuse to abandon our obligations as citizens to monitor and criticize the government.

Like Granderson, I know that “freedom isn’t entirely free”. It’s not “squeaky clean”. Unlike Granderson, and like Ken, I expect America to strive to be as squeaky clean as possible. Where we (allegedly) can’t be, I want to know why. I want to know what my government is doing in my name. I do not want elected dictators.

**********

LZ Granderson has exhibited questionable critical thinking skills in the past. A year ago he wrote an essay against the San Francisco ballot initiative that aimed to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. It was awful in nearly every paragraph. His arguments were either incomplete or idiotic in every case.

Five Year Olds Believe in Free Lunches

With the Supreme Court expected to rule on “Obamacare” (i.e. PPACA) tomorrow, I want to consider this reddit thread asking to explain it to a 5-year-old. There’s a long list of what PPACA does, and will do, if the Supreme Court upholds it. Some may be wise, while others are surely not. The overwhelming point, though, is that none of this is free. Consider this, for example:

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

That costs money. Even if the change is minor, computer systems have to be reprogrammed and tested. Multiply that across every employer in the U.S. How much productivity is being consumed by this instead of something else that may provide more wealth? What improved health outcomes will this generate?

Or consider:

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
…

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they’ll get taxed.

Those taxes are taxes on consumers. I suspect many people reading the list, and maybe its author, don’t grasp that. All taxes are on individuals. Consumers will pay higher costs or receive fewer services.

The real beauty of the list comes when the author injects opinion.

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. …

Yes.

… Personally, I take the opposite view, as it’s not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.

I don’t see the distinction between buy and have when the only way to get a thing is for someone to buy it. This is the “I like it” and “by whatever means” arguments in favor of constitutionality.

I expect the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate. I suspect the rest will go down, as well, because it’s the least controversial and problematic path if the mandate goes. The rest of the act needs the mandate to achieve the remaining cost savings (that it won’t actually achieve, even with the mandate). The least “activist” thing to do is for the Court to let Congress start over.

None of this is to suggest that we should do a victory dance in favor of the old status quo if the mandate goes down. We need reform within health care. Such as untying insurance from employment, which our current unemployment rate suggests would be wise. We won’t get responsible reform, because we’ll get more rent-seeking like PPACA instead. But if Congress has to start over, there’s a chance, however small.

Link via Wil Wheaton, who should heed his own “Don’t Be A Dick” suggestion. Blaming the constitutional challenge to PPACA on “the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party Rubes” as an attempt to “get the Supreme Court to take away” what PPACA legislates is dickish partisanship. Calling one’s opponents names and implying they’re stupid merely based on group affiliation is being a dick.

Penn Jillette on Obama’s Marijuana Hypocrisy

Penn Jillette is awesome for many reasons. As such I’m a fan of his new weekly podcast, Penn’s Sunday School. It always delivers, like last week when he went on a rant about President Obama’s continuation of the unwinnable, anti-liberty drug war and his hypocrisy. It’s brilliant and can be fully experienced in the clip below in a way the transcript can’t deliver.

Like Mr. Jillette, I’ve never consumed drugs or alcohol, but I do not care if another wants to do so. My only criterion is what I use for everything: do it voluntarily and without harm to another. Ingest drugs? No harm. Rob someone to get money to buy drugs to ingest? Harm. Drive while under the influence? Harm. It’s not complicated.

Contrast that with President Obama’s comments in his interview with Jimmy Fallon (video via NORML):

Notice the nanny-state mentality where anything that might be an individual problem automatically becomes a matter of “public health”. No one is an individual, just a cog in the machinery of the state to be managed and used.

Of course, Obama’s hypocrisy goes further. (As it does for all politicians, who are, by default, moral defectives.) Via the same NORML link, he clarified his remarks in an interview with Rolling Stone (from April):

Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not “use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana.” Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What’s up with that?

Here’s what’s up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law. I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, “Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.” What I can say is, “Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.” As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.

The only tension that’s come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we’re telling them, “This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way.” That’s not something we’re going to do. I do think it’s important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we’ve done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We’ve had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that’s an appropriate debate that we should have.

Only to a politician does “not prioritize” mean “vigorously pursue”. And, sure, cutting off supply of marijuana to people who may legally possess and use it within specific states isn’t “prosecution”, but it sure isn’t the same as federalism or a passing nod to his campaign promises. Nor, circling back to Jillette’s destruction of Obama’s hypocrisy, is his implied wrongness of recreational use vindicated by anything he’s said or done. He’s nothing more than a bad parent’s slogan: Do as I command, not as I do.

Government Preparation for Adulthood

This story is almost two weeks old, but it still has value.

A two-page oral sex encounter by an awkward teen at boarding school in the coming-of-age novel Looking for Alaska was deemed too racy by Sumner County schools last week.

The district banned the book from its assigned classroom reading list, becoming at least the second in the state, after Knox County in March, to keep students from reading it together in class.

The teen novel is the first in several years to be stripped from Sumner classrooms. Wilson, Rutherford and Williamson county schools say they haven’t banned the book or any titles in recent years. Metro schools didn’t have information on the book as of Monday.
…

In this case, he said, the value didn’t outweigh the controversy. The book was not pulled from any district library shelves, [Sumner County schools spokesman Jeremy Johnson] said.

I oppose censorship. This is clearly a form of censorship, although not quite as bad as removing the book from the school system entirely. A public school board prohibiting a book from the classroom curriculum is insulting to both teachers and students. It also provides excellent support for a libertarian rant against public provision of education. The argument against home-schooling seems centered around the willingness of some parents to avoid facts. This is no better, since the government engages in the same behavior. It’s also unnecessary. In high school, I had to seek parental permission to read The Catcher in the Rye for an essay because it featured adult language and themes. That’s an imperfect, reasonable solution which leaves discretion to parents and provides a learning opportunity for all students.

The school board’s decision is awful, and especially so because the book is part of a high school curriculum in which students are presumably being taught to think critically. Still, this strikes me as worse:

“Kids at this age are impressionable. Sometimes it’s a monkey see, monkey do,” said parent Kathy Clough, who has a freshman and a senior at White House High School, where the book had been assigned reading. “I’m going to trust that my school board made the right choice. … If they feel like this book is a little too graphic, I’m all for it.”

Or she could read the book and decide for herself. Just an idea.

I don’t understand that kind of parental abdication. Of course her concern is probably quite appropriate, given how willing she seems to turn over the raising of her children (who are nearly adults) to a government body. But this is infuriating because she assumes all parents are as incapable of teaching the idiocy of “monkey see, monkey do” as she implies she is, and therefore, no parents should have the choice for such books to be a part of their teen’s education. If she thinks a “child” 14 or older isn’t aware that oral sex is a thing, she’s mistaken. If a child teen between 14 and 18 hasn’t learned enough to distinguish literature from a directive, the school system is worse than just a censoring band of thugs. It’s an incompetent, censoring band of thugs. All parents should be vehemently opposed to ceding more control to that school system, as Ms. Clough is happy to do.

Here’s the author, John Green, explaining this scenario when it occurred elsewhere in 2008:

Via John Green on Twitter.

Update: Post updated because I found evidence that I had to ask permission to read The Catcher in the Rye.

I Prefer FPS Over MMORPG

I’m not a fan of privilege as a foundational argument. It’s confining and limiting. It’s focused on generalizations without regard for the individuals involved. It establishes a hierarchy for problems with the result, if not purpose, of minimizing any X that is less severe than Y according to the person wielding the argument. It’s claptrap that eventually resolves to “Shut up”.

Such is the case with John Scalzi’s recent post, Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. From the beginning it sets out the argument’s flaw as a definitive, justifiable rule that allows anyone who agrees with it to “prove” that the person who disagrees commits an error. Usually being dense, or something similar. It’s a way to shut down debate rather than start or continue one.

I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white males how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

It starts with condescension. Straight white men need to be educated, and if you challenge the argument, you’re proving your need to be educated. It’s stupid. It signals that there are default rules, either implicitly or explicitly assumed, that no one may disagree with. The only real question it allows is who’s next in needing to be educated about their privilege with respect to someone else under a simplified set of rules: straight minority males or non-straight white males.

Mr. Scalzi’s argument on privilege is easy enough to understand:

Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

As a generalization with no context, sure. But that’s shallow thinking. It’s meaningless. We don’t live our lives as generalizations. Our interactions are more complicated and messy than simple identifying characteristics. Mr. Scalzi’s argument rests on the basis that sexual orientation, skin color, and gender are the three supreme defining characteristics and life should be judged accordingly. All else being equal, would I encounter an easier, harder, or indistinguishable challenge in working with Mr. Scalzi as a Straight White Male than a Gay Minority Female would? I bet on indistinguishable.

He acknowledges other characteristics within the metaphor but makes them subordinate to these three:

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

I disagree that these three are the complete, highest characteristics. Is a straight white female born with genius-level intelligence, a trust fund, and a respectable family name playing on a more difficult level than a poor, stupid straight white male? What’s the scenario, fixing a flat tire on the side of the road? Being treated respectfully at the Mini Mart?

A later argument demonstrates the largest hole (emphasis in original):

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.

My goal is to “win” the game? According to whom? Judged by what criterion/criteria? By whose criterion/criteria? In which game? The argument fails because it neglects the reality that straight white male, gay minority female, and everyone in-between are people with unique, complex mixes of characteristics playing – or not playing – the game to which Straight White Man is the lowest difficulty setting. There are many games. There are different players. And there are different game masters. Context matters. Generalizations bludgeon.

One’s Conscience Should Favor Children Having Parents

Virginia is so ridiculous sometimes that it makes me say “God, damn Virginia”. Should there actually be a god, surely that god is not a fan of the hatred and bigotry that so many Virginia politicians and citizens embrace and repeatedly seek to codify. So it is again with SB 349 / HB 189, which Gov. Bob McDonnell can’t wait to sign. It updates the law for adoption agencies to include a “conscience clause”. Being Virginia this is nothing more than the legislature’s way of saying “EWWW, TEH GAYZ”.

Child-placing agency; conscience clause. Provides that, to the extent allowed by federal law, no private child-placing agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. In addition, the bill provides that (i) the Commissioner of Social Services shall not deny an application for an initial license or renewal of a license, nor revoke a license, of any private child-placing agency and (ii) no state or local government entity shall deny a private child-placing agency any grant, contract, or participation in a government program because of the agency’s objection to performing, assisting, counseling, recommending, consenting to, referring, or participating in a placement that violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. The bill provides that the refusal of a private child-placing agency to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in a placement that violates its written moral or religious convictions or policies shall not form the basis of any claim for damages.

As a libertarian, private actors should be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want to hate. Denying access to one’s personal services is a right. Free markets require more than one consenting party. Likewise, I possess the right to give my business to someone else who more closely shares my values.

But it’s also clear that one stops being 100% private when one starts (voluntarily) taking public money. Want to discriminate? Fine, do it with your own money. When everyone is forced to contribute money to you, constraints tied to basic principles are reasonable. in short, you’re entitled to your religious beliefs. You’re not entitled to use my money to spread them in the world.