Moving past the Bailey brouhaha
Sometimes it is best to appreciate a debate for what it is and leave it at that. The prolonged controversy over Northwestern psychology professor J. Michael Bailey's research for his 2003 book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen," has marred the potential for important dialogue with personal vendetta.
The fracas has swirled not around Bailey's theory - that men who become women do so out of an erotic fascination with seeing themselves as women - but around his research methods. Though the book used pseudonyms, two men-to-women transgenders who Bailey interviewed during his research came forward post-publication, alleging Bailey had used their stories without consent. The backlash snowballed quickly, prompting a formal investigation by the university into Bailey's research.
He has since been vindicated: A report authored by NU ethics scholar Alice Dreger concluded, after a review of his research and writing process, that no misconduct had occurred. Yet the flood of personal attacks vitriol continues unabated.
Bailey's plight has become fodder for renegade bloggers and malcontent activists who have removed the discussion from the realm of productive academic debate. One critic posted pictures of Bailey and his family online above crude, sexual captions. Anjelica Kieltyka, one of Bailey's original interview subjects, told The Daily she has devoted her life "24/7" to bringing down Bailey ("Report clearing prof leaves critics unsatisfied," Oct. 17).
In the context of the greater debate on homosexual and transsexual rights, the relentless defamation of one man's character is a trite and harmful path to follow.
We are glad that Dreger's efforts have begun to exonerate Bailey from the firestorm of ethics accusations. It is now time to lay other grievances to rest and put the debacle behind us.
The tax plan that got away
You might assume the $1.2 billion in new Chicago taxes Mayor Richard M. Daley recently proposed would be used to help alleviate the impending shutdowns and cutbacks on Chicago Transit Authority service. Or maybe it's to slash the city's pension debts? Or Chicago's endless budget deficit? Wrong.
No, it's a billion and change to fund new spending initiatives. Daley would probably argue these are programs the city hasn't been able to get to because of the crushing weight of pensions and health care for its workers. That's probably true.
But the city is two weeks away from the largest transportation crisis it has ever faced. It's time to stop playing chicken with Springfield over CTA spending.
The system needs money now to stave off a series of service cuts that will halve the number of bus routes, decrease the frequency of El trains and possible shutter the Purple Line Express service.
City officials would like to persuade us the new spending proposals are divorced from any CTA bailout package. That's flat-out false. The bipartisan bailout plan favored by local transportation officials and state legislators would affect the same tax levers as the new Daley plan - a quarter-percent sales tax bump and a real estate transfer tax increase.
It's one or the other. Say what you will about hiring practices around here - just search "Daley" and "hiring" on Google for all you could ever want to know - but the bald truth is that state workers, CTA employees and teachers get pension and health benefits private sector workers can only dream about. Until the city and the state figure out how to make cutbacks there, it'll be wonky budget politics and possible CTA service starvation instead.
Be the first to comment on this article!