11.03.2005

Reaping What We've Sown

Imagine...

You have a child attending a fine public university. He is a popular guy around the campus. He's a bright kid, studying history. And, even gets good grades. You taught him well.

One day, while at school, absorbing every ounce of the open-minded, tolerant and non-discriminating values and teaching of higher education, he decides he is going to spread his wings in this open and safe environment and make a porn movie.

He does it. He gets such a kick out of it that he produces a second one. This one is more professional. He hires a professional porn star and puts himself in the starring role, of course. This one gets shown on the university television station.

He is proud of himself. He gets more publicity than he'd ever received. Unfortunately, much of the attention is encouragement and validation for what he's done.

I wish I could say that this story is "imaginary." Sadly, it is very true. And, it is the result of the anti-absolutes, anti-God, amoral and relativistic thinking that prevails among higher education professionals.

It gets worse. The very people who fed him the garbage are doing absolutely NOTHING to help him out of this mess. Here's a segment of an interview (found at
Radio Blogger) Hugh Hewitt had with the student, Steve York.

HH: Has anyone stepped up to you and said Steve, you might not want to do this?
SY: You know, nobody personally has stepped up to me. No students, no administrators. They're very supportive of this, and that's the really odd thing.
HH: So, no one's come up to you and said Steve, what you're going to do is change your life, you're going to mark yourself forever as the guy who did the show at UCSD.
SY: Bill O'Reilly actually did, so...
HH: But I mean, I'm talking about on campus.
SY: Nobody on campus.
HH: I'm just stunned.


I think that many of us share Hugh's sentiment: stunned! But, in reality, this is the logical extreme of the ideas and the values schools are feeding this generation. If you didn't believe that ideas have consequences, believe it!

26 Comments:

At 11/03/2005 12:27:00 PM, Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

A tawdry tale, indeed. But the young man, old enough to ship off to war, is old enough to make his own dang decisions.

True, it's noteworthy that no one tried to save him from himself -- but wait a minute!

I just assumed Lores, that you marched under the "personal responsibility" banner! I just assumed you were a proud adherent of the the-government-has-no-business-in-social-engineering school. I just, you know, figured you figured freedom was, you know, a good thing, and that adults can be trusted to make their own decisions.

Ah, the crossroads of values are great places for such crashes of assumptions and conclusions, especially when we can't even agree on which is red and which is green.

Fie on this man. String his parents up if you want to. There are plenty of things to complain about in higher education. The abandonment of en loco parentis, a logical extension of letting 18-year-olds fight in wars, is not one of them.

--ER

 
At 11/03/2005 01:58:00 PM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

I think I'll have to side with the Erudite One on this. We can talk all about the failings of those at the school when it came to discouraging this student's activities, but I don't believe it was the "open minded, tolernat and non-discriminating values" of higher education that inspired him in the first place. He was just a kid who wanted to make porn, and like ER said, he has to be held responsible for that. Even the odd student at Oral Roberts U is probably making porn. And I don't recall which Ivy League school Larry Flynt attended. The student in question should have had his morals shaped more by 18 years of living with his parents than by one or two years of higher education. The school failed from the career counselling perspective.

 
At 11/03/2005 03:19:00 PM, Blogger Selected Pete said...

I wrote on this as well, and sadly, I have come to expect this from the good folks at UCSD. "Thepress" is wrong - and completely so - young people must be intervened with and shaped by leaders of character. They both require it, and desire it. I went to both university and to military by the time I was 21, and the difference is stark: in the military you are definitely intervened with no matter what you do. Here at UCSD, Mr York has obviously not been intervened with, and the result is an emboldened, foolish young man, and a woman with scruples who was defaced because she stepped up and said "something is wrong here." Shame on UCSD and their so-called progressive leadership.

SelectedPete
San Diego, CA

 
At 11/03/2005 06:43:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

ER and jaymeister: there is a massive difference between taking a kid aside for a heart-to-heart, what are you doing with your life talk and telling him what to do. personal responsibility doesn't presume that you make decisions without counsel.

A little bit of counsel, direction...or, at least a few questions to find out what he may really want to do.

At the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own actions, even if they were silent.

 
At 11/03/2005 07:40:00 PM, Blogger Rick Moore said...

Good post, Lores. A little responsibility exercised by the school authorities would have been nice.

 
At 11/03/2005 08:54:00 PM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

Lores,
I have no problem with that part of your argument. I'm all for taking the school to task for the lack of counsel. But I disagree with the first part, where you say that Steve York's foray into pornography "is the result of the anti-absolutes, anti-God, amoral and relativistic thinking that prevails among higher education professionals." That is a debatable point, but certainly not proven by the evidence presented.

In a nutshell, I'm saying that he might very well have been pre-disposed to this behaviour before he even got to UCSD - but we can still acknowledge that there was a failure on the part of the administration to discourage it once it happened. Even still, there's no telling if he would have continued making such videos on his own equipment.

 
At 11/03/2005 10:09:00 PM, Blogger Charlie said...

En loco parentis was and is a sound policy. 18 year olds don't fight wars by figuring it all out on their own -- they are trained by older and experienced sargents, and taken into battle by well-groomed lieutenants.

But this young man is 21, and old enough to know better. The fact that he is certain that making a porn movie is a triumph of the first amendment just shows that he is a typical, brain-washed student of the modern liberal university, where Nietzsche is god and the right to be (consensually) hedonistic is taught as our highest modern value.

Andrea Dworking got it just right when she said: "Women do not believe that men believe what pornography says about women. But they do. From the worst to the best of them, they do."

Pornography is all about making women into sexual toys. It's amazing to me that there are still female apologists for porn who just don't get it. But there are, and the modern university is cranking them out by the tens of thousands.

 
At 11/04/2005 12:11:00 AM, Blogger GrenfellHunt said...

Lores, you are 100% right. A college education is very much about values formation. And the faculty takes the lead. Right now, too many universities are promoting personal liberation as the ultimate value--to the exclusion of wisdom and self-discipline. The students follow along uncritically even as they tell themselves they are maturing.

The faculty and the admnistration set the moral tone of the campus. At UCSD, there are clearly serious failures.

 
At 11/04/2005 12:13:00 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said...

Lores,

I just heard you on Hugh's show, and you were so well-spoken on this topic.

Jaymeister et al are wrong about absolving the educational system of much culpability in this. But you are wrong in laying blame at the door of higher education. The problem starts way earlier than that.

I've told people before that I was raised to be a left-wing, anti-nuke, pro-choice, feminist environmentalist by the public school system. And that was before college. Students are with their teachers and peers for a bigger part of the day than they're with their parents. Add that influence to the entertainment system, and parents have an extreme-uphill battle to instill their values into their children.

Once upon a time, society would have smacked this kid for making porn. Not anymore.

We need to invite Shame back into our country.

 
At 11/04/2005 12:14:00 AM, Blogger Henry O said...

If you don't already, read Mike Adams http://www.townhall.com/opinion/contributors/mikeadams.html
He's a law professor at UNC and is waging a crusade aginst the hypocrisy of leftist universities.

 
At 11/04/2005 01:25:00 AM, Anonymous Francis said...

U r a great writer and insightful & clear thinker! I thought your post was the best one the week I won. I was surprised that u didn't make the last cut 10/10. Welcome to the Alliance. Enjoy ur stuff...Looks like y=ur at it a again Kudos, Francis of PowderTracks

 
At 11/04/2005 04:22:00 AM, Blogger Catherine said...

I watched this story on Scarborough Country, and really was shocked at the fact that York did not have any clue that what he had done was degrading and repulsive. It's a sad time when society has become so amoral that it cannot even recognize harmful and sexist attitudes when it is staring them in the face.

 
At 11/04/2005 04:24:00 AM, Blogger Goat said...

It is not that he made the film that alarms me it is the fact it is condoned and allowed to air repeatedly by the university. I heard the HH interview and he is an intelligent well spoken guy not what you would expect. I will say this on the 1st ammendment, he has the right to say/film what he wants, he does not have the right to be heard/broadcast. They promote this and stop ROTC programs and resist military recruiters. ROTC programs are resposible for creating many of our finest citizens throughout its history.

 
At 11/04/2005 04:27:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

He makes his own choices, and probably if the school had sat him down and reasoned with him he would most likely have done the same anyway.

So now you're calling Hewitt? What did Hannity do to lose you? I don't get Hewitt where i live. I have to listen to Hannity to hear you on radio.

 
At 11/04/2005 05:01:00 AM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Mark,

You're really missing out if you don't get Hewitt. You can go to the KRLA 870 website and listen to the broadcast on the internet. Or go to radioblogger.com. If not audio, there's usually transcripts. I have several favorite talk radio hosts, but Hewitt is one of those that I think has earned a lot of credibility for intelligent discussion; plus, he's one of the political blogging powerhouses.

Lores,

I taped today's shows from Medved through to Hewitt when I had to go to work, so I'll try to listen to your interview later. I did notice earlier today that he linked to your post. And while on the road, I did catch his interview yesterday with that kid.

Hugh should do a follow up 5 years from now.

 
At 11/04/2005 05:18:00 AM, Blogger Mary said...

I don't get it.

At times, libs decry the objectification of women and deem themselves to be champions of women's rights.

At other times, libs promote porn.

The two stances are at odds. It's just another example of the fundamental inadequacy of the liberal philosophy.

Since this all happened at a public university, I wonder if any tax dollars supported the kid's production.

If that's the case, I would think that the university and the state's legislators will be hearing from a lot of outraged people.

 
At 11/04/2005 06:16:00 AM, Anonymous aj4runner said...

mary, great point!

I am 'Just a Man', but have this observation.

Beyond the post by Lores, your reply and ones by others regarding women being degraded by pornography I'd like to add the treatment of women in general to this discussion to highlight the hypocritical stances taken by liberal/leftist so called women's rights groups.

Liberal and leftist groups like NOW, NARAL, Code Pink among others (and Cindy Sheehan wannabees) are missing in action when it comes to women in mass graves in Iraq, women being executed in a soccer stadium in Kabul, Afghanistan and their treatment at the hands of the Taliban and islamic terrorist taskmasters.

You would have also expected these groups to be outspoken in support of all the Iraqi women with their fingers stained in purple ink as they showed up at the polls to be heard even while under the threat of death for doing so. And what about the women of Afghanistan, voting for the first time ever in their recent elections.

I think their non-stance on women being murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan may be directly linked to their support for abortion which has killed, what, like 40 million in this country alone. I'm sure that a significant number of those killed unborn babies were girls.

Finally, one example from Iraq where the 'women's rights groups' in this country are missing in action when it comes to outrage over the treatment of women ---

Hundreds of women were found buried in trenches last fall near Baghdad still holding their newborn babies. The international forensic teams who surveyed the site determined that all the women were murdered by a single gunshot to the head and their baby boys and girls died from suffocation of being buried alive as bulldozers plowed them over and others were crushed to death as the same bulldozers ran over their fragile bodies.

Where is the outrage from NARAL, NOW, Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan??? WHERE IS IT?

Acknowledging the challenges that do remain, women are voting in Iraq & Afghanistan, being elected to office in both countries, girls are attending school for the first time, etc., etc., etc.

 
At 11/04/2005 09:12:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

hello and welcome to all who are commenting for the first time today. a thanks is in order to Hugh Hewitt, the King of the Blogosphere for linking this post to his site today :)

SkyePuppy: Welcome, my friend! I agree with you. I don't believe that anyone has any greater responsibility for a child than that child's parents. This post, however, has to do with the university's responsibility in this context. School officials had a responsibility and they relinquished it.

Mark: Here's the schedule: Laura Ingraham in the am. Prager till noon. Sean gets the mid-day three hours. Then, it's time for Hugh :)

I haven't given up on Sean. I just got to meet Hugh recently at a conference and I really like his show. So, I've started to call him periodically as well. :)

charlie, catherine, mary and aj: great points regarding women. that may have to be my topic regarding gender issues one of these Fridays. it's the most blatant form of hypocrisy from the supposed women's rights activits.

francis: it's a pleasure to meet you. i'm honored to be part of the alliance :) and, a late congratulations to you too for Blog of the Week honors. thank you so much for the very kind words!

 
At 11/04/2005 02:40:00 PM, Anonymous david said...

Would it be possible for you to post the interview on here like you did that time with the Hannity phone call?

 
At 11/04/2005 04:30:00 PM, Blogger William said...

In many instances, passivity is equivalent to consent. Because the university has 'condoned' the actions of the student, he will always be known as 'that guy in that porno.'

Due to this immoral mark on this social resume, it'll be difficult for major corporations and organizations to take this guy seriously for fear of their own reputations.

Whenever wise counsel is absent from our universities, individuals pay dearly. It's just unfortuante that this student had to be the example.

 
At 11/04/2005 05:37:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

hey david, it wasn't an interview. i just called into the show to make a comment about this issue. i'm not sure about posting it because i don't think the show is available to download after it's over, unlike sean's show.

maybe wordsmith is better qualified to answer this tech question?

 
At 11/04/2005 05:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

did your comment ever get through? When I was listening yesterday, he kept saying "Laura? Laura? Is Laura from the JustAWoman blog there?" Ha. Then he hung up. Got me excited for a minute ... HEY, I know who that is!! :o) S. Atlanta

 
At 11/04/2005 05:53:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

S in Atlanta: yeah, that was embarrassing. i got into a bad reception spot that time. i called back and made the comment :)

 
At 11/04/2005 06:50:00 PM, Anonymous amber whetstone said...

I think the University needs to put their money where their mouth is! They talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, everybody's problem is nobody's problem! If this situation was slightly different, involving a student exercising his anti-absolute worldview by making a video on how to make a bomb or on the 5 most successful terrorist attacks, the University would be in an uproar, and of course that video would not have been shown to the University. You absolutely reap what you sow! It starts out at what some may consider harmless(a porn video), but can progress into something this country does not want to face. In essence, the old saying "their opening a can of worms", is fitting in this situation! If the University chooses to sow this type of education, they will reap the consequences for it and then look to the government and society to help them squirm their way back out.

 
At 11/05/2005 02:27:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you realize most of UCSD's administrators are Christian Conservative, right?

And most are African American.

 
At 11/05/2005 02:33:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

Anon: I don't care whether UCSD administrators are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, black, white, Latino or Egypian. They have neglected their responsibility to the students of the university and to that student, in particular, to not address the situation in any way.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home