Georgetown Prof who called for “miserable deaths” of white men off the hook
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has launched a Title IX investigation against Georgetown University to formally determine if the school’s women-only programs violate Title IX. The OCR, however, has declined to look into the feminist professor whose tweet about Brett Kavanaugh triggered the investigation in the first place.
Title IX—a federal law that threatens to revoke funding for schools found guilty of discriminating “on the basis of sex”—was initially implemented in 1972 to fight for women’s equality in U.S. universities.
Over the past few years, advocates for boys and men have begun challenging the law’s precedents to fight for more resources for male college students. Since 56% of college students are now women, some are arguing that young men are neglected.
Kursat Pekgoz, 31, is one of the key activists who pioneered this approach. In early 2018, Pekgoz filed a federal complaint against the University of Southern California, alleging that USC’s female-only programs discriminate against men.
The complaint—initially dismissed by the San Francisco Office—was reinstated upon Pekgoz’s appeal to the U.S. federal government. This precedent inspired a wave of activism across the nation.
During the Brett Kavanaugh hearing in Sept. 2018, Georgetown Professor C. Christine Fair tweeted that white men who support Kavanaugh deserve “miserable deaths.” Because of this, Pekgoz later wrote the Title IX complaint against Georgetown.
“Look at all the entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement,” tweeted Fair. “All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”
Fair’s comments caught Pekgoz’s attention.
“She cannot be expected to teach her male students in a fair manner, and her presence creates a hostile environment against young male students,” Pekgoz wrote in his missive to OCR.
Georgetown has at least 18 programs that violate Title IX, he alleged.
“Georgetown has a very large number of female-only programs, even though women are the majority of students at Georgetown. Christine Fair’s comments supplied an additional incentive to write the complaint,” Pekgoz said by phone Friday.
According to an October 2019 letter, the OCR agreed to investigate numerous Georgetown programs and scholarships to determine if they truly do violate Title IX.
These include the school’s policy of affirmative action hiring for women, seven programs that exclude men, and numerous opportunities and scholarship programs that exclude men, according to the OCR.
But Pekgoz says the letter highlights the OCR’s “hypocrisy.”
Pekgoz notes that the OCR declined to investigate Georgetown’s Women’s Studies Department, based on the claim that Title IX does not allow the OCR to review curricula.
However, the OCR has previously interfered with curricular materials under Title IX before, Pekgoz says. The OCR is also “currently micromanaging” the curricular materials of Middle Eastern Studies under Title VI, a very similar law, Pekgoz argued.
The OCR also declined to investigate Professor Fair, whose tweets triggered the complaint.
“The letter does mention Professor Fair, even though she called for the mass-murder of white men and the desecration of their bodies. OCR’s bureaucrats would have reacted with swift retribution if Fair called for mass-violence against any other ethnic class such as Blacks, Muslims, or Jews” Pekgoz told The Post Millennial.
As I previously reported, Professor Fair also ran a Tumblr blog to doxx men who sent her hate mail. She made 11 full-on doxxing posts (which included full names, addresses, and phone numbers), and hundreds of other partial doxxing posts.
Tumblr de-platformed Fair soon after, citing a violation of the site’s community guidlines against terrorism and harassment. But after Georgetown gave her paid leave for a few months, Professor Fair has resumed teaching at the school.
While Pekgoz wrote the Title IX complaint itself, the National Coalition For Men (NCFM) took charge of filing the complaint against Georgetown University and answering follow-up questions from the OCR.
Harry Crouch, President of NCFM, said that he and his team are hopeful.
“It took a year almost to the day to get a response, but we are very excited that the OCR will investigate significant parts of our complaint. We are hopeful they will rule in our favour, and consequently, Georgetown will become much more male-friendly,” he said.
“We would like to thank Kursat Pekgoz for doing the initial research and draft of this complaint. … We are excited that OCR found sufficient substance to investigate many of our concerns,” he added.
Marc Angelucci—an attorney and NCFM board member—told TPM that the OCR is taking steps in the right direction.
“It’s about time the Department of Education finally looks at discrimination against men. Title IX is not gender-specific. It applies to men too. But the last administration didn’t seem to think so. All we want is fairness and justice,” Angelucci told TPM.
Now that some Georgetown programs are under investigation, it’ll likely take a few months to a year for the OCR to reach a verdict.
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Toni_Airaksinen.
A prolific Title IX activist and former Ph.D. student at the University of Southern California (USC) alleges that his school retaliated against him for his activism and that they “did all they could to sabotage” his chance of earning a Ph.D.
Now, he’s fighting back.
Kursat Pekgoz, 31, was relatively unknown until about two years ago. He studied Molecular Biology and English in Turkey and worked as a translator for some time. Five years ago he applied to USC in hopes of earning a Ph.D. in English.
By all accounts, Pekgoz was a standout candidate.
USC was smitten. Though Pekgoz received offers of admission from Tufts University and Rice University, USC wooed him away with an offer of the highly coveted Provost’s Fellowship, which covered his tuition and gave him a living stipend.
“Everything seemed fine during my first few years,” Pekgoz told TPM from his apartment in Los Angeles earlier this year. He conducted research, presented at conferences, and even taught one class a semester for three years.
But by 2017, Pekgoz noticed that his fellow male students had fewer scholarship opportunities than women. He wasn’t concerned for himself— Pekgoz received a full scholarship from USC—but for other male students.
“The injustice is obvious,” he told me.
To try to fix this, Pekgoz filed a federal complaint against USC in 2017, arguing that USC’s “women only” programs violate Title IX, a federal law that threatens to penalize schools if they fail to treat men and women fairly.
Women are the majority of undergraduate students, graduate students, and academic employees today. Despite this imbalance, many colleges offer massive scholarship opportunities and exclusive programs to promote their success.
The complaint was unprecedented. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreed the concerns might be legitimate, as I reported last January.
Noting his success, Pekgoz filed complaints against other colleges. Some nonprofits and attorneys followed his approach; 15 other colleges are now under federal review, according to exclusive documents provided to The Post Millennial.
Pekgoz’s unorthodox strategy catapulted him into the spotlight; both on campus and nationally. Outlets including NBC News, The Daily Wire, Refinery 29, The Chronicle of Higher Education, FOX News, USA TODAY, covered his activism efforts.
As fame graced Pekgoz, USC soon caught wind of his activism efforts. It is impossible to pinpoint exactly when his professors, dissertation committee, and fellow students started to catch on to Pekgoz’s activism.
But it caused him trouble, fast.
“I was on friendly terms with professors before they began shunning me for my stance on gender politics,” said Pekgoz. Two professors—Hilary Schor and Margaret Russett—“sabotaged my dissertation,” Pekgoz claimed.
“Hilary Schor vetoed my dissertation in secret right after she discovered about my Title IX activism, even though she gave me an A and praised my writing before.”
“Margaret Russett, a feminist professor who went to Yale, terminated my Ph.D. student status even though it was her pressure which led me to turn down offers of admission from Tufts and Rice” he added.
Neither professor responded to a request for comment.
In February 2019, Professor Emily Anderson emailed Pekgoz recommending “continuous enrollment for year 6” and noted that “that [USC] can absolutely provide a tuition/health award” if Pekgoz wanted to stay in the Ph.D. program.
But just one day before his sixth year, his dissertation committee changed course.
“I am writing in my role as Director of Graduate Studies to inform you that you will be dismissed from the Ph.D. program in English Language and Literature and the University of Southern California, effective immediately,” wrote Anderson on August 28.
She claimed Pekgoz failed to make “satisfactory progress” towards his Ph.D.
However, Pekgoz disputes the assessment and is fighting to get back to USC.
In an appeal letter submitted on September 27, Pekgoz claims USC officials singled him out, refused to grant his leave of absence request, and gave him an “arbitrary deadline” to submit his first thesis chapter which he claims no other student was subject to.
He also argued that there was “no formal precedent” for the deadline and that the stipulation that the thesis chapter be “viable” was “too vague and arbitrary.” Further, other students routinely take up to eight or nine years to finish their Ph.D., he wrote.
Pekgoz submitted an appeal on September 27. The process is ongoing.
“They were willing to honour me with distinctions before I started my advocacy, but they singled me out for persecution after my advocacy became public,” said Pekgoz. “This has a chilling effect on academic freedom and political discourse.”
“There’s no doubt my expulsion was politically motivated,” he added.
Thankfully, Pekgoz is currently employed. While he says he loves his work, he still hopes to return to USC and finish his Ph.D. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. USC offers three stages of appeal for dismissed graduate students.
The first stage, which involves a meeting with the Chair of the English Department, was denied. The second stage—which involves an appeal letter to Dean Finkle—was scheduled for November 4, but Pekgoz hasn’t heard back.
The last stage involves a formal hearing with Provost Sally Pratt. There is no date set for this hearing as of right now. “There is no date scheduled for this phase as of today. Still, [the situation] involves University employees, so I am going through the motions before taking it to Court.”
Toni Airaksinen is a columnist for PJ Media, The Post Millennial, and a digital strategist for kosher restaurants in Brooklyn, NYC. She graduated from Barnard College, Columbia University, and has also contributed to Quillette, USA TODAY, and The Daily Caller. Follow the author on Twitter: @Toni Airaksinen.
Right-wing media personalities and provocateurs Milo Yiannopolous and Gavin McInnes had water thrown at them by a feminist in Washington, D.C. Thursday.
The situation made a splash throughout Twitter due to the culprit’s brash admittance to the attack online. As Yiannopolous and McInnes ate at The Alibi restaurant in DC’s east end, one patron seated just a few tables over decided to livetweet the moment leading up to the attack.
“I am eating lunch 2 tables away from m*lo and g*vin mcg*nnis what do I do I’m not fucking kidding,” tweeted @notfromsplash, using asterisks to avoid having to type out their names.
Though @notfromsplash has since deleted the tweets and made her Twitter account private, screenshots of the posts give an accurate timeline of what unfolded.
After tweeting about how she was shaking uncontrollably in anger, Madison took it upon herself to dump two glasses of water on them.
A tweet from Ryan Katsu Rivera, the bird nest-haired sidekick of McInnes on his Freespeech.tv show Get Off My Lawn, indicated in a reply to Madison that she had been “drenched in Guinness” in retaliation to the attack.
“A grumpy feminist poured drinks on us, we managed to get her back,” said McInnes in a video posted to Twitter moments after the attack.
The attack aligns with divisive rhetoric being spouted in U.S. politics since the 2016 election. Last year, California Democrat Maxine Waters encouraged her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration, as well as their supporters.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” said Waters at a protest rally in Los Angeles.
When a panel of women all seem to be in agreement about the necessity of killing men on prime-time TV, you start to wonder what’s happening to our culture. On November 5, Australia’s public service broadcaster ABC hosted a panel of five women, plus its female presenter, on its popular Q & A programme. The programme has hosted many international stars in the past, such as Jordan Peterson, and this time, the star of the show—if that’s the correct term—was Mona Eltahawy, an intersectional feminist who promotes violence in order to “smash the patriarchy,” and dismissed Barack Obama as “part of the system” when he called for civility among activists.
I want patriarchy to fear feminism. White women accept crumbs from patriarchy because they allow their whiteness to trump their gender. But at the end of the day, even those white women have to recognise that nothing protects them from patriarchy. Nothing! For me, as a feminist, the most important thing for me is to destroy the patriarchy. (…) How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us, and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us? … I want women themselves … How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?
Eltahawy is an Egyptian-American feminist, whose work has helped put the oppressive, patriarchal Egyptian regime on the map. She’s bravely protested women’s rights in an Islamic country which admittedly does not offer women the same rights or opportunities as societies in the West. In her hatred for oppression, she has forgotten that it’s not “men” or the allusive “patriarchy” that is to blame for all that is bad in the world. In a society which allows an all-female panel to rant about men for half an hour straight, where everything and everyone from capitalism, colonialism, and Trump, to Australia’s prime minister Scott Morrison, received a good bashing, it rather proves the point that it’s become acceptable to be a misandrist and that women aren’t the silent victims.
She’s like a broken record who thinks there’s one, evil cause for everything, which you might expect from a teenage activist, but not from a 52-year-old woman. “I’m talking about the white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist patriarchy,” she added and referred to American feminist bell hooks (yes, it’s spelled like that, hooks didn’t agree with the colonialist, English rules of grammar) for good measure. When asked about what positive masculinity looked like, she shouted: “I have no fucking idea!”
Obama’s words may have hit a nerve, as it touched on Eltahawy’s own, simplistic message. “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly,” he said last Tuesday while speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.” This nuanced worldview doesn’t suit Eltahawy and the other feminists on the panel’s narrative. Men—or patriarchy, as if that makes it sound better—are the enemy, particularly the white, cisgender, middle-aged kind. Those are of course the worst, for having dared oppress and colonize and plunder all these years, according to the intersectionalists. The fact that it’s not so easy to divide people into “good” and “bad,” as Obama points out, must be annoying for purists like Eltahawy to have to listen to. Her response was total condemnation:
I completely and utterly disagree with Barack Obama. I go online exactly to tell people to fuck off when they attack me. This idea of respectability, this idea of civility, this idea of unity, all of these words….decorum. Who invented those words? Those words were invented by white men, for the benefit of other white men, in systems of institutions that were always designed to be for white men. And they weren’t designed for women like you or me, people of colour, and gender diverse people. They never imagined us in those spaces, and we show up and we just ruin it for them. (…)Barack Obama was part of the system and remains part of the system. I also disagree with his wife when she says “when they go low, we go high.” No, I fucking don’t. If you go low I’m going to come for you. I don’t have the luxury or the privilege to sit there and be civil to people who do not acknowledge my full humanity.
It’s ironic when a feminist fails to acknowledge another woman by name, and instead refers to her as someone’s wife, but I’ll let that pass. Eltahawy again shows that her outlook is so steeped in intersectionality it’s reached levels that are on par with conspiracy theories. To attribute a concept like “civility” to skin colour is also racist and shows her knowledge of different cultures is limited, and she’s inadvertently agreeing with white supremacists who claim other cultures are savage and less developed.
Although no men were invited on the show, Eltahawy was surrounded by a somewhat diverse looking group of women: Jess Hill, author of See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse; Nayuka Gorrie, an essayist and screenwriter who describes herself as Kurnai/Gunai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta, for simplicity’s sake; Ashton Applewhite, an American anti-ageism campaigner; and Hana Assafiri, businesswoman and “Social Change Agent”; and the host, Fran Kelly. Kelly lacked the spine to question much, if any, of what was spouted.
The viewpoint diversity was utterly lacking, and naturally, Eltahawy’s glorification of violence wasn’t met with opposition. Another of the panellists justified her call to violence by using the suffragettes as an example, saying they had been “fighting for their lives” and were only stopped by the First World War. The fact that most women would never want to support mass killing of their brothers, fathers and husbands didn’t seem to cross their minds.
Some people were impressed, however. An article on SBS by Saman Shad found the programme “refreshing”: “It’s not often we get to see a prime-time offering of smart, accomplished and angry women on our screens but that’s exactly what we got” Shad said. “Women are angry because things are unfair. Maybe sometimes women have to lose our minds a little to get the message across.”
Or maybe their points are completely lost and people are turned off by swearing, shouting and showing contempt for half the population. Just as not all men are misogynistic, capitalist oppressors, not all women are raging and wallowing in victimhood. Many of us get along just fine with the opposite sex, and appreciate how society has moved towards equality without having to go on killing sprees, but rather by men and women cooperating.
Perhaps ABC finds this sort of programme, which only presents one side of the argument, totally acceptable. Perhaps it thinks that intersectional feminism is something all women subscribe to (they don’t). Perhaps it is happy to spend Australian taxpayers’ money on propaganda. But as a public service broadcaster, this programme didn’t achieve the balance that it should be aiming for in order to be taken seriously.
Toronto City Councillors voted 20-1 in support of a review of policies governing community spaces in the city, following a large protest at Toronto Public Library’s Palmerston branch over feminist Meghan Murphy’s controversial talk on “Gender Identity: What does it mean for society, the law and women?”
The review was proposed by Councilor Kristyn Wong-Tam and will involve the consultation of LGBTQ+ stakeholders, many of whom were aghast at the Toronto Public Library’s pro-free speech stance.
Councilors will now investigate whether third party use of the city’s community spaces are in line and uphold the city’s policies supporting equity, diversity, and human rights, as well as those polices against discriminatory behaviour and speech.
Only one councillor present voted against the review, Stephen Holyday, who believes in “respect[ing] the autonomy of the library board to create its own policies and doesn’t like to see the council “wading into this.”
Ostensibly, Murphy’s event garnered more outrage than support, with hundreds coming to condemn Murphy for her opinion that “men cannot be women, even if they identify as trans”. At the event, Murphy said that she was astounded that so many came out to oppose that stance, “as if a strong majority of the population doesn’t agree with it.”
“Pride Toronto strongly opposes the Toronto Public Library’s decision to host and support an event with guest speaker Meghan Murphy to take place in a publicly funded space,” an open letter from Pride Toronto reads.
“It is well known Meghan Murphy asserts publicly and repeatedly that Trans women cannot be women and will always be men. This is a denial of the lives, experiences and identities of Trans people. It is a crude, hateful and hurtful assertion…”
They go on to deny the validity of Murphy’s concerns, primarily that as Trans rights are propagated, they will begin to infringe upon the rights of biological women—such as the right to women’s only bathrooms and sports. Pride Toronto responded by saying that, looking through an intersectional lens, this is simply not the case, as if Trans women, being real women, win more rights, then so do biological women by extension.
Other notable detractors of the Library were Fay and Fluffy, two drag queen readers of “Fay and Fluffy’s Storytime”, who have chosen to terminate their relationship with the Library.
With the motion to review policies surrounding community spaces, free speech, and hate speech, it is likely that this event will be the last time that the Toronto Public Library can come out unambiguously in favour of promoting free speech.
“As a public library and public institution, we have an obligation to protect free speech. When Toronto Public Library (TPL) makes meeting rooms available to the public we serve, we need to make them available to all on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use,” wrote the Toronto Public Library in a statement on October 15.
The Post Millennial interviewed Murphy last month to ask what she thought of all the controversy following her ban from Twitter and similar outrage she generated for speaking at an event in Vancouver.
In the interview, Murphy says that, in many ways, she depends on social media as a self-employed writer and speaker, and that her banning, as well as the controversy she generated, came as a total shock.
Murphy says that she didn’t realize any of her views were hateful or offensive, or even controversial, until she had been banned on Twitter. However, due to changes in Twitter’s terms of service, which were updated to include a policy on misgendering, Murphy’s trans-exclusionary feminist stance that only biological women are real women was supposedly sufficient for removing her account.
Although Lindsay Shepherd was banned for the same reason, Twitter reversed its decision in that case.