In logic, a non sequitur is the fallacy of asserting a conclusion which simply does not follow from the given premises. The world being what it is, I noted a while back that that isn't a strong enough criticism for some popular arguments; we need a new category, the contrarium sequitur (or contra-sequitur for short), which is the fallacy of asserting a conclusion which is exactly the opposite of the conclusion that you should draw from the given premises.

The New York Times Op-Ed page has always a particularly fertile field for picking ripe contra-sequiturs. That’s no doubt partly a function of the sort of people they employ. But I don’t think it’s just those particular guys; it’s really a feature of the house style, and perhaps an inevitable product of the intellectual environment when Very Serious People set themselves to issuing important opinions about matters of public concern.

Any political hack can churn out something that tries to shoehorn unruly facts into a predetermined party line, but it takes a special kind of environment to go beyond mere hackery day after day, to maintain such consistency in coming up with conclusions so exquisitely opposed to what the facts obviously suggest. For example, consider the recent online battle over Wikileaks, and the ongoing government efforts — led by the Obama administration and by Senators like Joe Lieberman — to pressure corporations like Amazon, Dyn Inc. (EveryDNS), et al. into cutting off the Internet services that Wikileaks needs to keep its website running, and to pressure payment processors like PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and Bank of America to cut off their access to funding, in the interests of national security and the alleged public interest. Many people see this and offer opinions which are better or worse informed, better thought out or worse thought out.

But only the New York Times Op-Ed page could take this government-driven campaign of intimidation to shut down Wikileaks and take it as proof of a crying need for more extensive government regulatory controls, which would allow the United States federal government to take a more active role in directing the business decisions of banks and payment processors. So that they can protect irksome bloggers, risky organizations, and unpopular opinions from being shut down by risk-averse banks, you see. This decision should not be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks — so, instead, they’ll leave it up to someone you can always count on to stand up for open debate and a free press for organizations like Wikileaks — the United States federal government.

All in the public interest, of course.

• no one who has ever been tempted toward a revolutionary. Captain Capitulation, eye of the storm (2011-01-10). no one who has ever been tempted toward a revolutionary politics or a radical political philosophy or envisioned a big transformation can be entirely comfortable with the the notion that "anti-government" rhetoric must be…controlled, lest it lead to violence. that sort of thing threw eugene debs in prison and deported emma goldman. (Linked Monday 2011-01-10.)

• On Cable News | The Agitator. www.theagitator.com (2011-01-10). Ta-Nehisi Coates: …it’s my impression that much of cable news is rigged. Complicated questions are forced into small spaces of time, and guests frequently (Linked Monday 2011-01-10.)

• The Agony of Paul Krugman. Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts. (2011-01-11). Paul Krugman is a Very Serious Thinker. His words are like the rain. If he did not say these things about purely political matters, who else possibly could? (Linked Tuesday 2011-01-11.)

• Graceless Degradation: WordPress Uglification for Outmoded Browsers. drench.github.com (2011-01-12). Graceless Degradation Graceless Degradation is a WordPress plugin that gives visitors still using Internet Explorer 6 an appropriate user experience. (Linked Wednesday 2011-01-12.)

• If suspect Jared Lee Loughner has schizophrenia, would that make him more likely to go on a shooting spree in Arizona? – By Vaughan Bell – Slate Magazine. www.slate.com (2011-01-12). If you found evidence on the Web that Jared Lee Loughner or some other suspected killer was obsessed with soccer or football or hockey and suggested it might be an explanation for his crime, you’d be laughed at. But do the same with “schizophrenia” and people nod in solemn agreement…. (Linked Wednesday 2011-01-12.)

In Lakewood, Ohio, Stephanie Milligan, a 16 year old high school student, fell down a flight of stairs and hurt her back. She wanted to get back to school after Thanksgiving break, but the principal wouldn’t let her. He wouldn’t let her because she needs to wear loose clothing — sweat pants, in particular — because of her back injury, but the school’s dress code bans Oversize, saggy, baggy or tight fitting clothing. Her doctor wrote her a note asking that she be allowed to wear sweatpants. That a recommendation from a licensed physician is necessary to be allowed to wear sweatpants to school is obviously insane in and of itself, but the school’s principal, William Wagner, is both a medical expert and a scholar, and he questions the severity of Stephanie’s injury and her need to wear sweatpants.

Armetta Landrum wrote about it for the Lakewood Patch (2010-12-20). Here’s the headline and subtitle for the story:

Student on the Hot Seat for Wearing Sweatpants to School

Sophomore at odds with school’s dress code, missed nine days of school.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the school’s dress code is at odds with the sophomore’s health.

Here is Lakewood High School Principal William Wagner’s explanation as to why not even a doctor’s request is a good enough reason to consider making an exception to his interpretation of his saggy/baggy dress code clause:

They don’t understand what the dress code is all about or how it is imposed.

–Quoted by Armetta Landrum, Student on the Hot Seat for Wearing Sweatpants to School, Lakewood Patch (2010-12-20)

Indeed. A doctor’s advice is, usually, about helping people, and he no doubt wrote his note on the common, but mistaken, assumption that school policies exist to help students learn. But that assumption is a complete misunderstanding: the dress code is not about helping students; it’s all about controlling students, and a reasonable exception is the last thing you want to make if your aim is to ensure that you, as the controlling authority, will continue to be able to keep young people in line with even the most insane and petty of requirements.^[1]

On a related note, Principal William Wagner is probably, like most high school administrators, a very stupid man, and intellectually negligent to the point of being functionally illiterate, especially when he is trying to defend his petty exercises of petty authority. I am fairly certain that what he meant to say is not that doctors don’t understand … how [the dress code] is imposed (as if that were some sort of mystery) but rather that they don’t understand how it is construed, or perhaps that they don’t understand the reasons by which it is justified. However, I will say that he has unwittingly highlighted the real issue here: how this sort of idiocy is imposed on perfectly innocent young people and well-meaning doctors and parents, because bellowing blowhard bullies like Principal William Wagner are appointed by politico-bureaucratic means, are supported by a political structure that crowds out any viable alternative and so insulates them from either popular voice or individual exit, and thus gives them the authority to insist on even the most insane policies, in the interest of protecting their disciplinary turf from any possible encroachment — even encroachment by minimal concern for innocent students’ education, comfort or good health.

See also:

• GT 2008-12-08: On Blaming the Victim, Part II
• GT 2008-09-07: In fifteen words or fewer: On Blaming the Victim
• GT 2008-06-11: Beating up your teenage daughter isn’t just a good idea; it’s the law.
• GT 2008-05-19: Dr. Anarchy answers your mail #5: Wherever I go, he goes....
• GT 2008-03-01: Perpetual state of supervision

1. ^[1]To be fair, the original purpose of the saggy/baggy dress code requirement itself was, no doubt, not to impose an insane and petty requirement on students, just for the sake of making them comply with insane and petty requirements. Like most such dress code clauses, the original purpose was no doubt to uphold institutional racism by selectively targeting ghetto styles of dress. Sadistic authoritarianism is always spilling over its original boundaries, so in this case an idiotic policy written with the purpose of racist social regulation now is construed and applied in an especially rigid way, with no clear motive for the rigidity other than a general defense of turf and disciplinary command-and-control.↩

Every time I deal with bureaucracy, I want to die; I want to live, so I need to avoid it. Marja Erwin (2010-12-28):

Of course it’s impossible to avoid it in this non-society. Of course the state cannot permit safe spaces where it could not violate people.And that’s one of reasons it’s so painful to deal with it. Every time I try to get some basic document sorted out – to get my…

Thank God the State keeps us safe from anarchy, or no-one could feel safe or secure or live their lives in peace.

The State promises safety, peace, order, and security. It consistently produces insecurity, chaos, violence and fear for just about everyone who interacts with it. And nowhere more emphatically than in its “securing” and “ordering” capacities.

• Q: Why Has the ACLU Been Silent About TSA Abuses? A: Because You Haven’t Been Listening. Radley Balko, Radley Balko: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts. (2010-12-13). In May, Matt Welch noted a storm of criticism from the right toward the ACLU for not defending some kids who were sent home from school for wearing shirts depicting the American flag to a Cinco de Mayo celebration. The problem was that the ACLU had intervened on the kids'… (Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)

• We Can Beat You, But Not Pay You. Modesto Anarcho (2010-12-13). The State is not welfare. It is not social service. The State is violence. (Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)

• notjessewalker: Why can’t Americans just set aside mindless partisanship and embrace mindless bipartisanship? #nolabels. Twitter / notjessewalker (2010-12-13). notjessewalker: Why can’t Americans just set aside mindless partisanship and embrace mindless bipartisanship? #nolabels (Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)

• The mirage of revealed preferences. Stephen Smith, Market Urbanism (2010-11-24). I often hear from libertarian-inclined defenders of the suburban status quo that the fact that American is so overwhelmingly suburban is proof that it's what Americans want. Economists call this "revealed preference," but it could also be understood as voting with your feet and wallet. People have made the decision… (Linked Monday 2010-12-13.)

• i can't do physics, because i can't do the math. but let me say. Captain Capitulation, eye of the storm (2010-12-13). i can't do physics, because i can't do the math. but let me say in defense of my turf that i don't think we should let physicists loose in the realms of metaphysics and epistemology. hawking, as the tls review puts it, thinks the reverse: philosophy is 'dead' because it's not… (Linked Tuesday 2010-12-14.)

• behind the curtain. flip flopping joy (2010-12-15). The State is male in the political sense. So is the Department of State. (Linked Wednesday 2010-12-15.)

• notjessewalker: Mixed metaphor alert: “The bottom line is that it is a fast moving train and that has become clear” http://bit.ly/dOogX4. Twitter / notjessewalker (2010-12-14). notjessewalker: Mixed metaphor alert: “The bottom line is that it is a fast moving train and that has become clear” http://bit.ly/dOogX4 (Linked Wednesday 2010-12-15.)