Friday Firing Lines for week of Mar 1: Amnesty, “Economics of Sex,” Judge Orlando Garcia

Notably absent in this article (which has some pretty bold claims) is an interview with either Rady or Strickland about their platform, or any evidence on what makes Bill Powers “evil”. But hey, unsubstantiated cynicism is the only way to get readers at this point.

— Online commenter “James” in response to Lucy Griswold’s column, “How UT’s Student Government systematically fails UT students, faculty and staff.” 


Since the amnesty was granted [i]n 1986 illegal immigration skyrocketed and now we have 4 times as many illegals as there were before we tried to fix the problem. This proves that amnesties just encourage more illegal immigration and that they solve nothing. The record is clear. If you want to end illegal immigration then enforce the law and that means no more amnesties and zero tolerance. It is always hard to punish wrongful behavior, especially when the perpetrator is otherwise law abiding. It is not going to get easier by waiting until the problem gets even worse. People will stop coming illegally if they understand that deportation is going to come both swift and sure. They need to understand we are not playing games.

— Online commenter “Hacimo” in response to Noah Horowitz’s column, “Dan Patrick’s former employee shows the danger in stereotyping immigrants


Question — how can a United State District Judge, such as Orlando Garcia, break the laws of the State of Texas? Answer — By following the lead of President Obama who has determined to disrupt this country by appointing many such judges. As the result, too many liberal judges have completely ignored our morals and family values, ignored the rights of religious faiths, ignored the laws that were created by the majority of the people, and ignored the limits of our Constitution. It is wrong for judges to authorize the slaughter of millions of unborn children, it is wrong to grant any taxpayer funded sex change operations for transgender prison inmates, and it is wrong to eliminate the Marriage Act which has always been the American way of life. The liberal judges who have done these things have completely lost touch with America and should be removed from our justice system as soon as possible. The American people and Congress have the mechanism and power to reverse these destructive acts. Will we do so or will we allow the continued destruction of our nation, our heritage, and our way of life?

— Ken Senkow, submitted via mail, in response to U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of Texas’ same-sex marriage ban


UT sociology professor’s research on sex is unscientific and wrong for UT” rightly raised important questions about the methodology and  ideological assumptions underpinning “Sexual Economics” a video produced by Sociology Professor Mark Regnerus and the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, a right-wing research institute. The columnist is right when he asks students to skeptically evaluate Regnerus’ claims. The video places the burden on women to be more responsible in demanding a “higher price” for sexual activity. Although some of his evidence questioning the pill’s objectifying side effects appropriates feminist critiques of the Sexual Revolution, and his talk of “sexual economics” bares resemblance to mainstream discussion of “long and short term mating strategies”, his sexist conclusion deserves refutation.

However the headline’s implicit suggestion (explicit in the website summary of the article) that Regnerus does not belong at this university mainly because of his antiquated critique of the sexual revolution and alternative sexual practices itself is laden with ideological assumptions. The article assumes “progress”, not academic debate and rebuttal, as the university’s standard and assumes sexual diversity is above academic critique.

While students evaluate Regnerus’ views on sex, we shouldn’t forget that dishonesty, not ideological disconformity, is the standard for revaluating a professor’s support amongst his peers. His misuse of his of his “fundamentally flawed” gay-parenting study in court to stop gay marriage (the study stated explicitly that it could not answer political questions over the “legal legitimacy” of gay marriages) seemed to be the main catalysts for the College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology’s distancing.

— Travis Knoll, Latin American studies masters student, in response to David Davis’ column,  “UT sociology professor’s research on sex is unscientific and wrong for UT