Wojcik told the Rover in September that she hopes to “give students knowledge about an art form that has been misdescribed” and answer common misconceptions about drag, adding that “Drag won’t turn kids gay.” She also asserted that it is “dangerous to put bans [on drag].”
As reported by the students, Olinger replied to the email, citing outgoing university president Father John Jenkins’ recent emphasis on academic freedom.
“This freedom in academic contexts is critical, and the university protects this freedom even when the content of the presentation is objectionable to some or even many. Because the event you reference is part of a one-credit course in film, television, and theater on the history of drag, the principle of academic freedom does apply in this instance,” Olinger wrote, as reported by the students.
Stout and Fogarty argued that drag shows, which generally feature biological males dancing provocatively, amount to the harassment of women and thus do not fall under the umbrella of academic freedom.
“Nowhere else in our nation do we accept misogynistic sexual stereotyping and objectification as something to be celebrated,” the students said.
“This event is not for the sake of study or dialogue. It is not the result of a faculty or students’ research. It is not for the sake of academic inquiry. Three male artists are being paid to parade around in provocative women’s clothing under the guise of self-expression and bodily autonomy. If this is academic freedom, then the phrase is meaningless. Academic freedom should not be used as a weapon of opinionated activism.”