What the . . . ?

In its long tradition of punctuating its parade of boring weekly columnists with a wacko, the Daily Northwestern has brought us someone who may be more off his rocker than any of the columnists I've encountered in my three years here. Nadir Hassan is not only staunchly extreme-right-wing in his politics (which, for some reason, seems to be a quality that shows up a lot in the wacko columnists and in media figures in general -- but here we get a chicken-and-egg problem: does the craziness result from a life of right-wing ostracization, or does ultraconservatism result from some sort of inborn eccentricity?), he apparently has no idea what he's talking about.

The kid can't seem to form an argument. In this week's column, he accuses the activists protesting Michael Bailey's allegedly unethical work of "academic totalitarianism" and hindering free speech. He only touches lightly on the serious accusations against Bailey (namely, that he didn't secure the consent of the people he used as research subjects and that he had sex with one of his research subjects), which are things he can't explain away and so simply ignores. He also doesn't see the contradiction inherent in most free-speech arguments of this sort: by telling the other side to "shut up and mind so-and-so's free-speech rights," you're basically fighting to suppress their free-speech rights.

Behind logical flaws, the column sports factual errors. Anyone heard of the "Southern Policy Law Center"? Certainly the people here haven't, who did a bit more thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the activists' claims that Bailey is helping turn back the tide of science and promote negative stereotypes, such as the idea that still holds currency in some circles, that homosexuality is a "disease."

At least Hassan concedes that if Bailey is found guilty of the actual accusations against him, he should be punished. Of course, this only comes at the end of a column lionizing Bailey as an academic-freedom fighter. Because we all know academic freedom consists of having your work unchalleneged by your peers.

At least Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly put up something of a challenge. Why does this guy make it so easy?

In the end, you just can't help feeling bad about the time wasted in producing this column.