This is the logical conclusion of title IX, which is the education version of section VII of the civil rights act.
Both define discrimination in such a broad way, that expressing an opinion could be considered as discrimination. Whether that opinion is "girls are not as smart as boys on average" or "political correctness has gone too far" is a detail. In principal, holding any incorrect opinion could indicate a bias that leads to discrimination.
If a university professor is standing up in front of class and saying, "It's just my opinion, but girls are not as smart as boys on average," then it's hard to see how that wouldn't come part and parcel with some sort of gender-based discrimination.
It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing.
"It's my opinion that girls are not as smart as boys on average, but I will treat everyone in my class fairly" doesn't pass the sniff test for believability.
It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing.
This is a great example of the kind of reasoning I was talking about. Because of your political beliefs you have determined that no reasonable person thinks "girls are not as smart as boys". From this you conclude that the only reason a person would conclude this, is because of some deeper bias against women. Therefore you conclude that such a person is very likely to treat women unfairly in the classroom.
Your political beliefs have become law, because the law interprets discrimination in a way that is informed by your beliefs.
EDIT: After more research, the government's advice is that title IX never applies to protected speech alone [0]. So saying "girls are less intelligent than boys" in fact could never, in itself, violate title IX. However, the definition of harassment is so vague that it's understandable that universities can't figure out how to reconcile the first amendment with title IX.
[0] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.htmlHarassment, however, to be prohibited by the statutes within OCR's jurisdiction, must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive. Under OCR's standard, the conduct must also be considered sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program. Thus, OCR's standards require that the conduct be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position, considering all the circumstances, including the alleged victim’s age.
Actually, it's from an evidentiary position that I think no reasonable person would hold the opinion "girls are not as smart as boys". Just like I think no reasonable person would hold the opinion "The summer sky is typically green". Both are wrong, but one suggests that half of someone's students won't get a fair shake.
As far as I can tell, you're the one politicizing speech here.
A reasonable person, lets say a neurologist or developmental psychologist, might very well say there are differing levels of intelligence between girls and boys. It depends on what you're measuring. When they study intelligence closely enough, there are absolutely differences between the sexes. I don't think it's sexist to say that girls are generally better at interpersonal communications than boys (a form of intelligence). Even if it's that debatable (and I'm sure it is), moving from a disagreement on opinions to a title IX complaint is not warranted.
And in a class about neurology or developmental psychology, putting it to a question, "are boys smarter than girls?" and then using that to explore different kinds of intelligence, is a very different thing from a professor in an unrelated field declaring, "It's my opinion that girls are less intelligent than boys, blah blah, office hours at 3pm on Wednesdays, etc.."
One is ok, the other suggests a bias that's going to cut half the class off at the knees.
Isn't the statement "girls are not as smart as boys on average" precisely the type of speech we want professors to have the freedom to say. Unless you want to close of an entire line of inquiry to investigation and scrutiny.
The analogy is to show how knowledge of the mean of a population group does not preclude impartial treatment of any individual in that group.
Or to pick an example with with similar moral connotations: "It's my opinion that black people have higher blood pressure than Asian people on average, but I will treat every patient fairly."
Would this (accurate) opinion prevent a doctor from providing appropriate care to hypertensive Asian patients?
Both define discrimination in such a broad way, that expressing an opinion could be considered as discrimination. Whether that opinion is "girls are not as smart as boys on average" or "political correctness has gone too far" is a detail. In principal, holding any incorrect opinion could indicate a bias that leads to discrimination.