Olivia Krolcyzk is a young woman who is enrolled at the University of Cincinnati. As part of the requirements for a course that Ms. Krolcyzk was taking in the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies she submitted a proposal for a project that would examine the role of “transgender athletes” who compete in women’s sports.
In that proposal she used the phrase “biological women” as consequence she received a grade of 0 because the phrase “biological women” “reinforces heteronormativity”
Initially, after Krolcyzk complained, Nipper, the instructor, was reprimanded but that reprimand has since been revoked. The University of Cincinnati gave this reason for revoking the reprimand:
”Nothing contained in this Policy shall be construed as prohibiting the University from imposing measures that do not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Sections 3 and 11 of the Ohio Constitution such as:
(5) Content restrictions on speech that are reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose, such as classroom rules enacted by teachers.”
So what happened? Nipper is required to complete training on the First Amendment, Krolcyzk completed the course and received an A and the UC’s policy remains intact. In other, words faculty are still able to restrict a student’s freedom of speech simply because it suits them.
I took this debate to Facebook on a page administered by the Cincinnati Enquirer. I posted the NY Post article and a subsequent article from the Cincinnati Enquirer.
As one might expect, my post was met with a “spirited” rebuttal the crux of which was that I lied because Ms. Krolcyzk completed the course and received an “A”. But Ms. Krolcyzk grade is not the issue because Ms. Nipper and other faculty are still free to hide behind the iron curtain of “intellectual” pedagogy when they decide that what one of their students has said is not to their liking. What follows is my last response to my detractor.
”Yesterday you insisted that I lied in my post when I said that UC had supported removing a students First Amendment right to free speech. You insisted, as you can see below that the University "took steps to ensure her first amendments rights". However, you furnished nothing to support you position. As a consequence I blocked you --- it is my personal policy to restrict who can interact with me when their interaction becomes abusive as was the case with you. However, in your case I came to the conclusion that there was more at play here than your shallow defense of censorship and your attempt to silence my analysis of what happened and so you find yourself "unblocked"
Here is what the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote about this incident:
"Professor Melanie Nipper argued that her decision was well within the boundaries of acceptable censorship outlined in UC's free speech policy, that which is 'REASONABLY RELATED TO A LEGITIMATE PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSE, SUCH AS CLASSROOM RULES ENACTED BY TEACHERS.' " (emphasis added)
And the article continues:
"The university agreed the reprimand was "issued in error," and it will be removed from her personnel file, according to an email sent to Nipper on June 29 from Margaret Hanson, the College of Arts and Sciences interim dean. "
The fact that Nipper was required to complete some sort of a basic civics course on the First Amendment does not prevent her from restricting another student's free speech in the future nor does submitting any syllabus that she may write in the future for review by the University.
The clear issue is not what Nipper’s carefully crafted syllabus says but rather what she says in open class or how she grades students. In this case Nipper penalized Olivia Krolcyzk for stating a biological reality.
While the University's position gives it faculty wide latitude in deciding which speech is protected and which is not based solely on pedagogy it offers no protection to students.
This is Krolcyzk response:
"UC is affirming that professors will have no consequences for failing students with dissenting opinions," Krolcyzk said in a statement. "THEY WILL NOT UPHOLD A STUDENT’S RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND WILL TAKE NO ACTION TO ENSURE THAT THE EDUCATORS HIRED ARE ACTING IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER." (emphasis added)
I see nothing in either the University of Cincinnati's position, the story by the NY Post, the story by the Cincinnati Enquirer OR your personal attact that makes me a liar or the information that I presented wrong.
Once upon a time Universities were places where free thought and speech were not just encouraged but demanded. Now universities including the University of Cincinnati, are demanding that students set aside their First Amendment rights of association and speech.
Were I a parent paying for my child's "education" at the University of Cincinnati I would most assuredly find another institution on which to spend my money to ensure that my child -- MY ADULT CHILD --- had full, unfettered rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and unrestricted by a pedagogical faculty member.
But I think what happed on this thread was that just like Nipper you read something that you didn't like and you attempted to quash it calling me a liar.
Life is not like that. In real life people bite back -- as the folks at AB or Target or Disney are learning.”
So there you have it; a powerful university exercising its substantial power over the persons who are directly paying that university for the provision of their service via tuition and fees and through their tax dollars to employ faculty like Ms. Nipper who see nothing wrong and everything right with demanding that their students over whom they wield absolute authority suspend reality and speak only what those instructors demand that they speak.
I suppose I could call this just one more example of transterrorism but it is far worse. Not only is the University of Cincinnati setting the terms for successful completion of course of work for a degree but they are demanding that those degrees conform to the “pedagogy” of their faculty — no matter how absurd their positions might be.
It was right and just for Ms. Krolcyzk to use the phrase “biological women” precisely because it is as Nipper lamented, heteronormative. Heteronormative is how the world is. The notion that “transgenderism” is the norm is absurd on its face and no university should be demanding that it students accept it as such.
Union, Kentucky
10 July 2023
no where near reality.