Katrina Fernandez, who writes about this on her blog, astutely notes:
I know the story is over a month old, ancient in the internet world, but it continues to bother me. For several reasons I can’t let it go. The first being her deliberate wardrobe choice. Yes, I’m picking on her clothes.
Looking at her at face value in her lab-coat-white blazer and scrub colored blouse, those who don’t know better might assume she is a physician and think she actually knows what she’s talking about. This was her obvious intention. People trust doctors, not liberals with degrees in English and Political Science. She is deliberately practicing to deceive, using her wardrobe to subconsciously suggest a level of expertise she does not possess.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is Science! at the service of activism in a nutshell. Does Harris-Perry care about the truth? As a decorated veteran of American higher education, one can be pretty sure she doesn’t – she certainly doesn’t care about biological reality. She cares about serving the god Progress. No sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of mere truth, is too much to make. Progress is a jealous god.
I was wondering where I’d heard her name before – I watch TV only when stuck in hotel rooms while on business trips – and Wikipedia provided the answer:
In an MSNBC promo, Harris-Perry is quoted as saying:
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”
It isn’t surprising that someone who refuses to recognize the humanity of an unborn child will then turn around and say that the child is the property of the state – the ‘whole community’. Due to all that fine education she received she is of course immune to the stench of totalitarianism here. Just add this bit from Mike Flynn’s blog, and it should be clear where Progress is headed:
The buzzword among cognoscenti is “post-person,” defined in a much-cited 2009 Philosophy and Public Affairs paper by tenured Duke professor Allen Buchanan, as those “who would have a higher moral status than that possessed by normal human beings” (emphasis original). Buchanan admits crafting chromosomal übermenschen “might be profoundly troubling from the perspective of the unenhanced (the mere persons) who would no longer enjoy the highest moral status, as they did when there were only persons and nonpersons (‘lower animals’).”
If the likes of Dr. Harris-Perry were howling with outrage over this sort of talk, perhaps we could dismiss it at the ravings of a quack – but this duck’s pond is exactly the same collection of elite universities that have blessed the tiny-minded activism of Harris-Perry. So, it would be rude and disrespectful to point out that the idea of a ‘post-person’ is outrageous, undemocratic, and frankly evil if anything is evil. (That anything is or can be evil is a question consigned to cocktail party banter in universities, with eyebrows raised at anyone who doesn’t automatically assume the right answer.)
Or, could it be that the people in Harris-Perry’s peer group actually like the idea of post-persons, who could decide, with their higher moral standing, what to do about the children that are, let’s face it, their property? (It will never occur to them that they, the epitome of enlightenment, might be on the ‘cattle’ side of the relationship. Maybe if their high-end educations had included some history – but it didn’t.)