Saturday, November 5, 2016

#1742: Roy Den Hollander

Roy Den Hollander is a men’s rights activist most known for a range of lawsuits that challenge Orly Taitz for frivolous lunacy.

In 2008, for instance, Den Hollander filed a suit contending that Columbia university could not use government money, such as federal financial aid, to fund its Institute for Research on Women and Gender. (He had by then already made a name for himself for suing Manhattan nightclubs because they offered free or discounted Ladies’ Night drinks to women). Women’s studies courses (“or as I affectionately call them ‘Witches’ Studies’”), argued Den Hollander, discriminate against men and therefore violate the Fifth and 14th amendments. Apparently Women’s studies departments offer networking opportunities from which females benefit more than males, said Den Hollander, apparently not quite realizing that men are allowed to take the courses. Nor did he have a particularly clear idea about what, precisely, were being taught in the courses: “The courses pretty much treat guys as if they’re sources of evil in the world and the women are victims,” said Den Hollander, alleging that Columbia has accordingly become a “bastion of bigotry against men . . . [that has] thrown its influence and prestige into violating the rights of men by offering a women’s studies program, but no men’s studies program.” Oh, yes: “When a university receives government funding, they have to provide equal opportunities for men and women. If there’s no men’s studies, women’s studies is unconstitutional.” (Just think for a moment about how abysmally idiotic that claim is.)

Den Hollander’s real problem is, of course, with the way women’s studies spreads what he calls the “religion” of feminism. And women’s studies do so with the help of federal money, thereby violating the establishment clause; in fact, it would somehow “violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” “Sounds dumb,” admitted Den Hollander, “but it’s not.” The courts, apparently, didn’t pay much heed to his reassurance that the suit really wasn’t as dumb as it sounded. (You might wonder on what grounds Den Hollander would have standing in such a suit; apparently he would, as a Columbia alumnus whose “direct contact with the offensive religion” of feminism makes him “very uncomfortable” and interferes with his “use and enjoyment of Columbia as [a] member […] of the Columbia community.”

Apparently he has also tried to sue comedian Jim Norton over his treatment of Den Hollander during a phone interview on the Opie & Anthony Show, but apparently agreed to drop his suit if Norton would also drop his motion to have Hollander sanctioned for filing a baseless claim, as well as being forced to pay Norton’s legal fees. An illuminating exchange.

Diagnosis: Good grief.

1 comment: