Camille Paglia is one of the last voices of common sense.
She is absolutely correct in pointing out how progressives claim their positions are all science based.
When progressives hold "march for science" rallies it is pure leftist propaganda to paint conservatives as religious zealots.
1. The progressive argument for abortion is definitely not science based. However opponents of abortion are making science based arguments - that few scientists are disputing.
2. The climate change arguments by progressive that global warming is a one way trip and we are at the point of no return in 10 years - is not science based. It is zealotry wearing a thin disguise of science.
3. The global warming movement, is now climate change because the predictions based on models haven't come true.
4. The global warming movement says that climate is directly related to activities of man and that he can simply reverse these actions and global temperatures will drop. This is proposed knowledge, an unproven scientific theory. There is a vast difference between scientific law and scientific theory.
The progressive 'we make decisions using science' propaganda couldn't be further from the truth.
Dr. Paglia, thank you for being brave, consistent and honest. We need a lot more of you in the academy.

Conservatism has indeed become anti-science. It wasn't always this way, and there are certainly anti-science movements that transcend partisan borders (anti-vaxxers are equally common on the left and right). But overall, the right today is vastly less supportive of science. This is what happens when reality becomes inconvenient to your goals.

Climate models have actually been quite accurate. Here's a good explainer with handy charts: https://www.carbonbrief.org...

The distinction you attempt to make between a "law" and a "theory" shows that you have no familiarity with science whatsoever. Please take some science classes - we'd be happy to help you figure this all out!

Both extremes adopt anti-science positions, they just tend to be different ones. For example, much of liberal social policy is based on the assumptions that equalizing resources will produce equal outcomes, and that unequal outcomes are caused by unequal resources. Every bit of real science that's been done on those topics has said the opposite.

I have and you are incorrect.
More importantly, the notion that conservatives are anti science is simply a statement of your antipathy toward people who don't agree with you.
But the most important scientific reality that climate changers miss, is that your proposed solution won't move the dial at all and that is something the science community can agree on.
Your inference about conservatives is that they are all flat worlders waiting for the rapture.
But the truth is that the whole climate hysteria is about as close to religious zealotry as you can get.

Lol, you ought to listen to your propaganda machine -- fox 'news' -- where a predominate amount of conservatives cite a lot of their beliefs.

I agree it is a blanket statement to say that conservations are anti-science. Although, I still believe a majority of conservatives do not trust scientist but rather lobbyist on Fox. It's a charade to say otherwise when you can easily obtain those statistics done by multiple think tanks and or independent data companies.

Lastly, regarding your purported 'understanding' of climate change -- it is laughable. What?! Do you honestly believe 99.99% of scientist are wrong and increasing volatility in weather patterns are just hot air? The hubris and arrogance is palpable. Please continue to live by that antiquated ideology and cite your information from Infowars hahaha.

You really need to review the research on climate change. It is clear from your comments you are clueless in this area.

I disagree with almost all of this, but let me take on just one point: Although there may be differences between scientific laws and scientific theories, the difference is not about truth. Scientific theories are not tentative ideas that somehow get promoted to the status of laws once they become accepted. Indeed, the theory of general relativity provides a better and more complete understanding of gravity than does Newton's law of gravity. It is one of great myths of the debate over evolution that this power idea can be dismissed as "just a theory." That it is a theory is not its weakness but its strength. There is no international panel of experts waiting to declare this a law once accepted as truth. This pronouncement happened a long time ago and yet it remains a theory.

Theories become law through the process of falsification. The process allows scientists to make adjustments and move it closer to the truth.
The climate change "science" is no where close to Newton or relativity.
In fact it hasn't advanced because it has become religion. If you don't believe Gore and AOC you are a climate denier: an infidel, non believer, heretic, witch or communist.
Lame brained ideas that we have to be off fossil fuel and that we can do it by fewer cows and windmills is kind of like these religious cults that predict when the world will end.
For those who need to worship something, buy a set of rosary beads. Its alot better than following Gore and AOC off the cliff.

This post is awesome! How dare you or anyone try and paint the progressives as a bunch of hypocrites and phonies. Here comes all the angry progressives telling you that you are a bigot, racist, and all the other propaganda terms they like to yell/scream!

Not sure where the abortion argument is coming from but I'm not sure anyone is making any science-based arguments about it. Abortion is purely a religious, dogmatic, and/or emotional issue. From my perspective, one's objection to it for whatever reason does not necessarily trump the fact that pregnancy is a very personal, single-person/body issue.

The inaccuracy or failure of climate change predictions and models certainly does not negate the entire argument; such climatic changes are readily apparent world-wide. The causes may not be exactly known but, to me, it comes down to this: all the theorized human contributions to climate change are just inherently unhealthy and potentially lethal. Why would we NOT take action? Maybe we're not significantly affecting ice-melt or desertification...but even if we're contributing in any small way...those are pretty bad evolutions, so why would we not want to do what we can to slow it down?
Much less, just general air and water quality concerns.

The only argument against climate change action is economic impact. There will certainly be some. But is our economy, intellectual capacity, and resilience so fragile that climate change policies will really be the undoing of our nation? I suspect no moreso than inaction. I have more faith in humanities innovative ability. The GND may have flaws and be optimistic, but we have to do *something*. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Air and water pollution cause significant health issues. Why would we ignore that because its economically uncomfortable?

The argument the anti abortion people make is what is life and when does life begin. No scientists say that in vitro fetuses are not human life.
The argument against the climate change remedies is that they simply won't work, they won't dial it back and it will have catastrophic economic results.
The arguments completely ignore science, or practical considerations.
Four nuclear reactors in PA generate more than the entire wind and solar generators in the country.
But nuclear is off the table, not for scientific reasons but emotional reasons.
Saying that we can run this country on wind and solar is like saying you can unhook a Kenworth Freightliner from a trailer full of pianos and that you can hook up a burro instead and he will haul that trailer of pianos over the continental divide.
It is beyond naive to think it will work.
I am all for reduction in all man made pollution.
But lets come up with real solutions not political and pseudo religious schemes.
And as for the 10 years we are doomed crowd. If the US fell down a sinkhole today and disappeared, the result in reducing climate "might" be one degree or less by the end of the century based on the models being used.
Another reason you know it is mostly baloney. If AOC really believe we are doomed in 10 years why is she flying non stop and often on private jets?
There is an Amtrak that goes from DC to NYC every hour.

Nuclear Power is not off the table for no good reason. In spite of the fact that bombarding Uranium -35 with neutrons produces abundant energy that can be harnessed to power electrical devices, there is the concern about the storage of the waste generated that have very long half lives, that can cause devastating long term health effects if it leaches into the environment........

Your credentials are?

Common sense.

Troll. And a well-fed one at that.

Science never proves anything ... at least not in the same way as deductive arguments in formal logic or the axioms of geometry - neither of which rely on empirical evidence from the observable and putatively "real" world.

Science can, however, generate and confirm hypotheses, link them together in explanatory theories and confidently present those as informal "laws" which have such overwhelming evidentiary support that it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent.

Science, however, is not what Camille Paglia is all about. She is about controversial cultural beliefs and she trades in sensationalism. She is an earlier female version of Jordan Peterson - also on the right - and, perhaps, Slavoj Žižek on the left.

She thrives on being in the spotlight and ensures as a symbol of an attitude, not as a genuine "thinker."

That's why she rather enjoys petitions to have her "silenced"; they ensure that she will be given a platform.

While, therefore, I share most, if not all, of the opinions of her critics, I remember well (and fear the return of) parallel arguments from the "conservative," "reactionary," "neofascist" (call it what you will) side that mocked, marginalized and otherwise "silenced" alternative opinions - whether critical of misogyny, homophobia, racism, capitalism, colonialism, imperialism. xenophobia, religious bigotry, erotic literature and art, etc., etc., etc.

Having fought for over 50 years for "academic freedom" for fellow leftists, I am not about to let hard-won victories for "progressive," "liberal," "leftist," "anarchist," "marxist," "feminist" teaching and writing be undermined by adopting the same attitudes and taking the same actions (albeit in reverse) that once imposed ideological conformity on higher education.

The voices of corporate domination and the now hegemonic neoliberal ideology that - whiney complaints from the ill-educated mouths of Ann Coulter and the current president* - ought not to be emboldened by displays of intolerance by people whose freedom of thought has only barely been won in some quarters and could easily be lost by a squabble over a celebrity cerebrum.

Yes, Ms. Paglia is a bit of a beast, but why give her publicity and access to a righteous cause?

Get help you are suffering from bad case of TDS

Camille Paglia's voice is what academia needs. She is a gadfly, definitely, and has strong opinions on many topics. However, she does make people think and consider their own assumptions.

She's making people think? What? That rape victims are making up stuff? No, thanks. Pay someone else to think and fire her.

I'm not sure you have read much on her beyond media articles - and please correct me if I'm wrong. I have and believe Professor Paglia's writing is much more nuanced than 'rape victims are making up stuff.' I believe each university needs a few gadflies on the various ends of the many political spectrum - and that those gadflies need to offer more than kneejerk 'gays are evil' or 'Trump is a jerk' and that this professor fits that criteria.

Not quite. The argument is that the people who are making up stuff were never rape victims in the first place.

By the way, in which category would you put Vanessa Tyson? Would you say that she is making stuff up, or instead would you say that Virginia's Democratic lieutenant governor is a rapist?

Rape accusers often make stuff up.

Stop being hysterical Hope.
Take a chill pill and put your thinking cap on.

Lol. I am guessing you're a baby boomer? These myopic and antiquated ideology will die off after your generation. ;) Enjoy it while you can.

I have no idea what AssociateProfessor's age is, but I'm mid-Gen-X and agree with him 100%.

Good for the university in resisting the mob. We set a dangerous precedent when we start silencing the voices we disagree with. I don't always agree with Paglia, but as Evelyn Beatrice Hall said in 1906, "I disapprove of what Paglia says, but I will defend to the death her right to say it."...or something along those lines :)

Forget the academic freedom angle. Most professors who cling to that hoary notion have nothing to say anyway. Instead, challenge anyone who dislikes Camile Paglia to engage her ideas on the basis of her claims and warrants, just as we would advise a freshmen writing student to do. It's a marketplace of ideas, not a prison of correctness.

I've been echoing this for sometime as well...debate the arguments, not the people. But I fear these topics are too personal and our country's climate has shifted from attacks on ideas to attacks on individuals. The moment one's politics became a qualifier of ideas, it was apparent we were collectively headed into dark days.

Paglia makes far more sense than the double talk and circular logic of the trans activists. Maybe the activists are the ones that should be removed from campus.

I've been wondering when the hordes would be coming for Camille Paglia. I'm glad David Yager, president of her university, was ready with a strong and reasoned pushback explaining that academic freedom and freedom of speech are vital to the core mission of universities in society. Why can't people who disagree with someone else's ideas use their own freedom of speech to respond with what they believe are better ideas instead of calling for the "offender's" head or shouting them down? Maybe everyone would learn something in the exchange.

In this day and age, the university president's statement is very courageous.

Here is an excellent example of the continued need for classical academic freedom.

Paglia shouldn't be fired, but of the several dumb things she says here, the assertion that climate change is a "sentimental myth" is the one that ought to be disqualifying for a university professor.

Then there is the problem that she is flatly wrong on the facts when she says "biology has been programmatically excluded" from women's and gender studies programs. If she conducted even a cursory examination of the field, she would find out that scholars have been drawing on biological sciences in gender studies for at least the last decade.

Do a literature search, Prof. Paglia. Ask a scholar in the field. Look at the titles in leading journals. That's what scholars do before making assertions of fact.

Women's and gender studies are definitely not science. I'll take your word for it that the curriculum includes science but I am skeptical.

The field is not a science like biology or chemistry––who claimed it was? But there are trained scientists who work in the field, just as there are in philosophy (philosophy of mind) and history (history of science, intellectual history). It is interesting what prompts skepticism and what doesn't.

At my R1 university there are plenty of scientists who are faculty members in our Women and Gender Studies program. I know many of these faculty and trust the merits of their scientific research, which often has nothing to do with gender. It is commonly thought that these programs only include faculty from the humanities--many of the more "provocative" pronouncements come from the humanities-oriented faculty members in women and gender studies programs, and this creates the impression that these programs are dominated by humanities disciplines. My scientist wife is jointly appointed in her home discipline and in the women's studies program, and I know this to be the case at other universities as well.

Thanks for the enlightenment on this. I bet your wife is also a fantastic addition to both programs.

I doubt that you and Paglia have the same approach to "science". You appear to be an Unreconstructed Positivist while Paglia belongs to the Wild West of Promoting Outrage.

An astute observation. But a lot can come from the Wild West. Outrage gets people conversing, just look at all the smart and thoughtful comments on this thread in a matter of hours.

Professor Paglia likes to play the role of a provocateur, and I do not disagree that in that role Professor Paglia sometimes (often?) ventures into areas about which she is not prepared or competent to comment. But if we used that as a standard to fire faculty we could wipe out half of the humanities faculty in one fell swoop. Scholars from one discipline often make uninformed claims about the content in another discipline without having a scholarly basis to make those claims. Professor Paglia comments on climatology or biology or economics may or may not be right, but it does not disqualify her from being a knowledgeable and competent faculty member in her home discipline. Over the years she has said plenty of things that I like and plenty of things that I don't like, but she has a right to say those things--whether I like them or not--without fear of reprisal.

How quickly we forget the lessons of the Sokal Hoax.

Is your presumption that there is no difference between what happened 23 years ago and today? Why would you presume that, I wonder.

(Never mind that the fraudulent papers published by Sokal was purported to be "science studies" and not gender studies.)

Have you actually looked at published course syllabi and found any evidence of biological science being required as a prerequisite to any women’s studies courses? I have not.

Exactly. Biology department courses should be core to the curriculum.

Well, she certainly isn't qualified to teach climate science, but I don't think the University of the Arts is going to ask her to take on a course in that area. As far as her public comments, she should be able to say whatever she wants. University administrators should explain to the students that if she says things they think are completely wrong, they should respond with refutations, not with calls for her dismissal. I admit I haven't been paying much attention to Prof. Paglia. I did read Sexual Personae a long time ago and thought that it was an interesting read, but marred by a tendency zip through her thoughts as if she were writing under the influence of amphetamines.

The assertion that a certain belief should be "disqualifying for a university professor" is in fact a call to fire them, or at least to ban the hiring of anyone who agrees with that view. I think Paglia is very wrong in her idiotic views about rape, gender, and climate change, and a deeply overrated pseudo-intellectual. But Paglia's expertise in art history or whatever has nothing to do with her extramural views on these topics, so she must not be punished for them. And even experts in these fields should be given a wide latitude to express controversial ideas. So climate change denial should not be disqualifying for any professor outside of climate science, and even within a relevant scientific field it should not be any kind of automatic ban but part of a broad judgment of a professor's academic expertise.

I think we mostly agree. But in case my meaning wasn't clear: if Paglia really thinks climate science is a myth motivated by feelings, she isn't qualified to make declarations about science or higher ed disciplines more broadly.

It goes beyond a question of her (lack of) expertise in climate science. Someone on a university faculty ought to know that knowledge in all disciplines comes through the application of shared disciplinary protocols.

It's not that one must accept other methods and epistemologies as sacrosanct; we probably all have doubts about the ultimate soundness or value of the knowledge produced by other disciplines, whether it is gender studies, economic theory, or continental philosophy. But that is very different than saying (or pretending) that a whole discipline is mythical nonsense fueled by irrational sentiment.

Calling her not qualified is not the same as calling for her to be fired. The students are obviously wrong to ask the administration to fire her.

How quickly we forget the East Anglia climate scandal.

Maybe you have forgotten some stuff. Those scientists were cleared of any false claims or malfeasance by: 2 commissioned reviews by other scientists; a UK Parliament report; an investigation by the Inspector General; an investigation by the National Science Foundation.