I don’t understand this story at all. Of course, it would help a bit if the news media thought it was worthy covering. Instead the story gasps in the rarefied and suffocating atmosphere of a few conservative websites. I get it: this idiocy makes progressive extremism look bad. But then, it is bad.
Third-year Scalia School of Law students Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara (that’s the George Mason U. law school in Northern Virginia) have been sanctioned by the school in the following bizarre scenario. On September 27, 2024, a classmate solicited their opinions in a “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe chat regarding their support for his proposal that the student government put tampons in the men’s restrooms. (Yes, this again.) Cerankosky was critical of the proposal, arguing that “allow[ing] biological females into male restrooms to access period products as ‘trans men,’” would mean “female bathrooms will welcome male occupants.” She found that development unacceptable because female students might be “considerably uncomfortable if there are males using private women’s spaces on campus.” “Women have a right to feel safe in spaces where they disrobe,” she added. Arcara posted her agreement with that assessment.
The male classmate then ridiculed their concerns and called the two women anti-trans bigots. Two weeks later, on October 11, both Cerankosky and Arcara received “no-contact” orders from GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion prohibiting them from having any contact with the male classmate, aka “Asshole,” who had complained to the administration alleging harassment. Neither of the women had ever spoken to the guy, other than to exchange messages in the chatroom.
What the…hell? How could any school think this kind of punishment for pure speech content is ethical and reasonable, never mind constitutional? How could a law school do this? How could a law school named after Antonin Scalia do this, or think it could get away with it?
Yeah, Dana, come on in…
Good question.
The two abused law students are suing, and that’s hardly a surprise. I think the controversy is silly, and I’m not sure I follow their logic; why do tampons in the men’s rooms endanger the sanctity of the ladies rooms? I wouldn’t care if there were tampon dispensers, slot-machines, streaming Yankee games or funhouse mirrors in a men’s room as long as there were toilets, sinks and urinals. Never mind, though: Cerankosky and Arcara are being censored and punished (not that being prevented from having contact with Asshole is much of a penalty) for being insufficiently woke. This is how indoctrination works.
If we let it…
Ethics Alarms 
The controversy is not as silly as it may seem. If trans-men are allowed in male restrooms it stands to reason that trans-women will be permitted in the female restrooms. That is the crux of their argument. The only relevance of the tampon machine in the male restroom is to show that biological women will be entering the male restroom. If the tampon machine could be used by biological men the issue would be moot.
The suit however is not silly. The women were asked a question and answered it in good faith. Because the questioner did not like the response it used the diversity office to sanction the women. These sanctions will become part of their record and could impact future employment or other opportunities. I hope they get enough of an award to not just pay off their tuition and fees but to open their own practice at some point.
The asshole was creating a gotcha moment and he should be identified.
Well, you have judges and the bureaucracy to thank for this one. This is the standard procedure required under Title IX currently. When someone complains that they feel they are being harassed because of their GENDER by another student, a no-contact order is issued as specified by the Biden DOE. It doesn’t require a motive or reasonable fact. If someone feels that the behavior of another student makes them uncomfortable and the reason for it has some nebulous connection to their gender, that is all that is needed.
This is what happens when you allow agencies to change the wording of laws. You take a law that is supposed to keep schools from barring students from programs due to their sex (for example keeping women from applying to engineering programs), and then you get rulings that allow men to be barred from speaking in some classes to protect women! Now, the courts have allowed the bureaucracy to substitute the concept of gender for sex as specified a statute that was already overinterpreted to a ridiculous extent.
Thank you. Useful explanation. We’ve been overrun by useful idiots.
Well stated.
jvb