\nAimed at children, the phenomenon is far more subversive than its defenders claim<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n
D<\/span>rag Queen Story Hour\u2014in which performers in drag read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores\u2014has become a cultural flashpoint. The political Right has denounced these performances as sexual transgressions against children, while the political Left has defended them as an expression of LGBTQ pride. The intellectual debate has even spilled into real-world conflict: right-wing militants affiliated with the\u00a0Proud Boys<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Three Percenters<\/a>\u00a0have staged protests against drag events for children, while their counterparts in the left-wing Antifa movement have responded with offers to serve as a protection force for the drag queens.<\/p>\n Families with children find themselves caught in the middle.\u00a0Drag Queen Story Hour<\/a>\u00a0pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. \u201cIn spaces like this,\u201d the organization\u2019s website reads, \u201ckids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.\u201d But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women\u2019s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.<\/strong><\/p>\n These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first \u201cqueen of drag\u201d in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.<\/p>\n The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life.<\/strong> The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n S<\/span>tart with queer theory, the academic discipline born in 1984 with the publication of Gayle S. Rubin\u2019s essay \u201cThinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality<\/a>.\u201d Beginning in the late 1970s, Rubin, a lesbian writer and activist, had immersed herself in the subcultures of leather, bondage, orgies, fisting, and sado-masochism in San Francisco, migrating through an ephemeral network of BDSM (bondage, domination, sadomasochism) clubs, literary societies, and New Age spiritualist gatherings. In \u201cThinking Sex,\u201d Rubin sought to reconcile her experiences in the sexual underworld with the broader forces of American society. Following the work of the French theorist Michel Foucault, Rubin sought to expose the power dynamics that shaped and repressed human sexual experience.<\/p>\n \u201cModern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value,\u201d Rubin wrote. \u201cMarital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top erotic pyramid. Clamouring below are unmarried monogamous heterosexuals in couples, followed by most other heterosexuals. . . . Stable, long-term lesbian and gay male couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid. The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.\u201d<\/p>\n Rubin\u2019s project\u2014and, by extension, that of queer theory\u2014was to interrogate, deconstruct, and subvert this sexual hierarchy and usher in a world beyond limits, much like the one she had experienced in San Francisco. The key mechanism for achieving this turn was the thesis of social construction. \u201cThe new scholarship on sexual behaviour has given sex a history and created a constructivist alternative to\u201d the view that sex is a natural and pre-political phenomenon, Rubin wrote. \u201cUnderlying this body of work is an assumption that sexuality is constituted in society and history, not biologically ordained. This does not mean the biological capacities are not prerequisites for human sexuality. It does mean that human sexuality is not comprehensible in purely biological terms.\u201d In other words, traditional conceptions of sex, regarding it as a natural behavior that reflects an unchanging order, are pure mythology, designed to rationalize and justify systems of oppression. For Rubin and later queer theorists, sex and gender were infinitely malleable. There was nothing permanent about human sexuality, which was, after all, \u201cpolitical.\u201d Through a revolution of values, they believed, the sexual hierarchy could be torn down and rebuilt in their image.<\/p>\n There was some reason to believe that Rubin might be right. The sexual revolution had been conquering territory for two decades: the birth-control pill, the liberalization of laws surrounding marriage and abortion, the intellectual movements of feminism and sex liberation, the culture that had emerged around\u00a0Playboy<\/i>\u00a0magazine. By 1984, as Rubin acknowledged, stable homosexual couples had achieved a certain amount of respectability in society. But Rubin, the queer theorists, and the fetishists of the BDSM subculture wanted more. They believed that they were on the cusp of fundamentally transforming sexual norms. \u201cThere [are] historical periods in which sexuality is more sharply contested and more overtly politicized,\u201d Rubin wrote. \u201cIn such periods, the domain of erotic life is, in effect, renegotiated.\u201d And, following the practice of any good negotiator, they laid out their theory of the case and their maximum demands. As Rubin explained: \u201cA radical theory of sex must identify, describe, explain, and denounce erotic injustice and sexual oppression. Such a theory needs refined conceptual tools which can grasp the subject and hold it in view. It must build rich descriptions of sexuality as it exists in society and history. It requires a convincing critical language that can convey the barbarity of sexual persecution.\u201d Once the ground is softened and the conventions are demystified, the sexual revolutionaries could do the work of rehabilitating the figures at the bottom of the hierarchy\u2014\u201ctranssexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers.\u201d<\/p>\n Where does this process end? At its logical conclusion: the abolition of restrictions on the behavior at the bottom end of the moral spectrum\u2014pedophilia. Though she uses euphemisms such as \u201cboylovers\u201d and \u201cmen who love underaged youth,\u201d Rubin makes her case clearly and emphatically. In long passages throughout \u201cThinking Sex,\u201d Rubin denounces fears of child sex abuse as \u201cerotic hysteria,\u201d rails against anti\u2013child pornography laws, and argues for legalizing and normalizing the behavior of \u201cthose whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.\u201d These men are not deviants, but victims, in Rubin\u2019s telling. \u201cLike communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation,\u201d she explains. \u201cConsequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt.\u201d Rubin wrote fondly of those primitive hunter-gatherer tribes in New Guinea in which \u201cboy-love\u201d was practiced freely.<\/p>\n Such positions are hardly idiosyncratic within the discipline of queer theory. The father figure of the ideology, Foucault, whom Rubin relies upon for her philosophical grounding, was a\u00a0notorious sadomasochist<\/a>\u00a0who once joined scores of other prominent intellectuals to sign a petition to legalize adult\u2013child sexual relationships in France. Like Rubin, Foucault haunted the underground sex scene in the Western capitals and reveled in transgressive sexuality. \u201cIt could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult, he may even have consented, he may even have made the first moves,\u201d Foucault once\u00a0told an interviewer<\/a>\u00a0on the question of sex between adults and minors. \u201cAnd to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n Rubin\u2019s American compatriots made the same argument even more explicitly. Longtime Rubin collaborator Pat Califia, who would later become a transgender man,\u00a0claimed\u00a0<\/a>that American society had turned pedophiles into \u201cthe new communists, the new niggers, the new witches.\u201d For Califia, age-of-consent laws, religious sexual mores, and families who police the sexuality of their children represented a thousand-pound bulwark against sexual freedom. \u201cYou can\u2019t liberate children and adolescents without disrupting the entire hierarchy of adult power and coercion and challenging the hegemony of antisex fundamentalist religious values,\u201d she\u00a0lamented<\/a>. All of it\u2014the family, the law, the religion, the culture\u2014was a vector of oppression, and all of it had to go.<\/p>\n T<\/span>he second prerequisite for understanding Drag Queen Story Hour is to understand the historical development of the art of drag. It begins with a freed slave named\u00a0William Dorsey Swann<\/a>, who dressed in elaborate silk and satin women\u2019s costumes, called himself the \u201cqueen of drag,\u201d and organized sexually charged soir\u00e9es in his home in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his life, Swann was convicted of petty larceny\u2014he had stolen books from a library and dinnerware from a private residence\u2014and then, in 1896, was charged with \u201ckeeping a disorderly house,\u201d a euphemism for running a brothel, and sentenced to 300 days in jail. From the viewpoint of modern sexual politics, the story has all the elements of the perfect left-wing archetype: Swann was a man who liberated himself from chattel slavery and then from a repressive sexual culture, despite the best efforts of the oppressors, the puritans, and the police.<\/p>\n Drag became explicitly political seven decades later, during the Stonewall riots of 1969, in which patrons of a gay bar in New York City rioted against police and began a wave of gay and lesbian political activism. As writer Daniel Harris\u00a0explained\u00a0<\/a>in the counterculture journal\u00a0Salmagundi<\/i>, traditional drag performances from William Dorsey Swann until the mid-1960s were sensual experiences, \u201can innocuous camp pastime,\u201d but with the onset of the sexual revolution, they became forms of resistance and revolution. \u201cAfter the 1960s,\u201d Harris wrote, \u201cideology [tightened] its grip on the aesthetic of drag when gay men began to use their costumes to reevaluate the whole concept of normality and thus carry out a crucial part of the cross-dresser\u2019s agenda: revenge.\u201d Drag performers increasingly saw their vocation as political and started street organizations such as Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries in order to join the wave of activism rising through their communities in New York, San Francisco, and other hubs.<\/p>\n Suddenly, drag was not a private performance but a statement of public rebellion. The queens began using costume and performance to mock the fashion, manners, and mores of Middle America. In time, the need to shock required the performers to push the limits. \u201cMen now wear such sexually explicit outfits as ball gowns with prosthetic breasts sewn on to the outside of the dresses, black nighties with gigantic strap-on dildos, and transparent vinyl mini-skirts that reveal lacy panties with strategic rips and telltale stains suggestive of deflowerment,\u201d Harris noted. \u201cThe less drag is meant to allure, the bawdier it becomes, with men openly massaging their breasts, squeezing the bulges of their g-strings, sticking out their asses and tongues like porn stars in heat, and lying spread-eagle on their backs on parade routes with their helium heels flung into the air and their virginal prom dresses thrown over their heads.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe goal of drag, following Butler and Rubin, is to obliterate conceptions of gender through performativity.\u201d<\/p>\n The next critical turn occurred in 1990, with the publication of\u00a0Gender Trouble<\/i><\/a>, by the queer theorist Judith Butler.\u00a0Gender Trouble<\/i>\u00a0was a bombshell: it elevated the discourse around queer sexuality from the blunt rhetoric of Gayle Rubin to a realm of highly abstract, and sometimes impenetrable, intellectualism. Butler\u2019s essential contribution was twofold: first, she saturated queer theory with postmodernism; second, she provided a theory of social change, based on the concept of \u201cperformativity,\u201d which offered a more sophisticated conceptual ground than simple carnal transgression.\u00a0Gender Trouble<\/i>\u2019s basic argument is that Western society has created a regime of \u201ccompulsory heterosexuality and phallogocentrism,\u201d which has sought to enforce a singular, unitary notion of \u201csex\u201d that crushes and obscures the true complexity and variation of biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and human desire. Butler argues that even the word \u201cwoman,\u201d though it relates to a biological reality, is a social construction and cannot be defined with any stable meaning or categorization. There is nothing essential about \u201cman,\u201d \u201cwoman,\u201d or \u201csex\u201d: they are all created and re-created through historically contingent human culture; or, as Butler puts it, they are all defined through their performance, which can change, shift, and adapt across time and space.<\/p>\n Butler\u2019s theory of social change is that once the premise is established that gender is malleable and used as an instrument of power, currently in favor of \u201cheterosexual normativity,\u201d then the work of social reconstruction can begin. And the drag queen embodies Butler\u2019s theory of gender deconstruction. \u201cThe performance of drag plays upon the distinction between the anatomy of the performer and the gender that is being performed. But we are actually in the presence of three contingent dimensions of significant corporeality: anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance,\u201d Butler writes. \u201cWhen such categories come into question, the\u00a0reality<\/i>\u00a0of gender is also put into crisis: it becomes unclear how to distinguish the real from the unreal. And this is the occasion in which we come to understand that what we take to be \u2018real,\u2019 what we invoke as the naturalized knowledge of gender is, in fact, a changeable and revisable reality. Call it subversive or call it something else. Although this insight does not in itself constitute a political revolution, no political revolution is possible without a radical shift in one\u2019s notion of the possible and the real.\u201d<\/p>\n By the 2000s, the performance of drag had absorbed all these elements\u2014the social-justice origin story of William Dorsey Swann, the carnal shock-and-awe of Gayle Rubin, the ethereal postmodernism of Judith Butler\u2014and brought them together onto the stage. The queer theorist Sarah Hankins, who performed extensive field research in drag bars in the Northeast, captured the spirit of this subculture and its ideology in a\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0for the academic journal\u00a0Signs<\/i>. Drawing on the work of Rubin and Butler, Hankins describes three genres of drag\u2014straight-ahead, burlesque, and genderfuck\u2014that range from stripteases and lap dances to simulations of necrophilia, bestiality, and race fetishism. Hankins describes the world of drag as a \u201csociosexual economy,\u201d in which the members of \u201cqueerdom\u201d can titillate, gratify, and reward one another with cash tips and money exchanges. \u201cAs an audience member, I have always experienced the tip exchange as payment for sexual gratification,\u201d Hankins writes. \u201cAnd I am aware that by holding up dollar bills, I can satisfy my arousal, at least partially: I can bring performers\u2019 bodies close to mine and induce them to touch me or to let me touch them.\u201d Or, as one of her research subjects, the drag queen Katya Zamolodchikova, puts it: \u201cI\u2019m literally out there peddling my pussy for dollar bills.\u201d<\/p>\n The goal of drag, following the themes of Butler and Rubin, is to obliterate stable conceptions of gender through performativity and to rehabilitate the bottom of the sexual hierarchy through the elevation of the marginal. \u201cThe act of paying a dominant\/domineering woman, a male supplicant, a hapless wage slave, or a boy allows the audience member to temporarily embody one or more of a number of \u2018bad\/unnatural\u2019 social positions, for instance the pedophile, the closeted gay chickenhawk, the predatory female cougar, the sugar daddy or momma, even the sexualized youth\/child themselves,\u201d Hankins writes. And the discipline of \u201cgenderfuck\u201d takes it a step even beyond adult\u2013child sex. As Hankins describes, this style of performance \u201cforegrounds tropes of primitivism and degeneracy as tools of protest and liberation\u201d and seeks to subvert taboos against \u201cpedophilia, necrophilia, erotic object fetishism, and human\u2013animal sex.\u201d These performances constitute the end of the line: the culmination of more than a century\u2019s work, from the silk-and-satin drag balls to the hyper-cerebral politics of deconstruction to the annihilation of traditional notions of sex.<\/p>\n T<\/span>he final turn in the story of drag is, in some ways, the most surprising. As the dark side of drag pushed transgression to the limits, another faction began moving from the margins to the mainstream. Some drag queens\u2014most notably, the drag performer RuPaul\u2014toned down the routines, pushed the ideology deep into the background, and presented drag as good old-fashioned, glamorous American fun. Television producers packaged this new form of drag as reality programming, softening the image of the drag queen and assimilating the genre into mass media and consumer culture.<\/p>\n This provided an opportunity. As the queer theorists\u2019 vanguard intellectual project was running aground on incest and bestiality fantasies, the most enterprising among them took a different tack: using the commercialization of drag and the goodwill associated with the gay and lesbian rights movement as a means of transforming drag performances into \u201cfamily-friendly\u201d events that could transmit a simplified version of queer theory to children. The key figure in this transition was a \u201cgenderqueer\u201d college professor and drag queen named Harris Kornstein\u2014stage name Lil Miss Hot Mess\u2014who hosted some of the original readings in public libraries and wrote the children\u2019s book\u00a0The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish<\/i>. Kornstein sits on the board of Drag Queen Story Hour, the nonprofit organization that was founded by Michelle Tea in 2015 to promote \u201cfamily-friendly\u201d drag performances and has since expanded to\u00a040 local chapters<\/a>\u00a0that have organized hundreds of performances across the United States.<\/p>\n Kornstein also published the manifesto for the movement, \u201cDrag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood<\/a>,\u201d with coauthor Harper Keenan, a female-to-male transgender queer theorist at the University of British Columbia. With citations to Foucault and Butler, the essay begins by applying queer theory\u2019s basic premise of social constructivism and heteronormativity to the education system. \u201cThe professional vision of educators is often shaped to reproduce the state\u2019s normative vision of its ideal citizenry. In effect, schooling functions as a way to\u00a0straighten<\/i>\u00a0the child into a kind of captive alignment with the current parameters of that vision,\u201d Kornstein and Keenan write. \u201cTo state it plainly, within the historical context of the USA and Western Europe, the institutional management of gender has been used as a way of maintaining racist and capitalist modes of (re)production.\u201d<\/p>\n To disrupt this dynamic, the authors propose a new teaching method, \u201cdrag pedagogy,\u201d as a way of stimulating the \u201cqueer imagination,\u201d teaching kids \u201chow to live queerly,\u201d and \u201cbringing queer ways of knowing and being into the education of young children.\u201d As Kornstein and Keenan explain, this is an intellectual and political project that requires drag queens and activists to work toward undermining traditional notions of sexuality, replacing the biological family with the ideological family, and arousing transgressive sexual desires in young children. \u201cBuilding in part from queer theory and trans studies, queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the normative function of schooling through transformative education,\u201d they write. \u201cThis is a fundamentally different orientation than movements towards the inclusion or assimilation of LGBT people into the existing structures of school and society.\u201d<\/p>\n For the drag pedagogists, the traditional life path\u2014growing up, getting married, working 40 hours a week, and raising a family\u2014is an oppressive bourgeois norm that must be deconstructed and subverted. As the drag queens take the stage in their sexually suggestive costumes, Kornstein and Keenan argue, their task is to disrupt the \u201cbinary between womanhood and manhood,\u201d seed the room with \u201cgender-transgressive themes,\u201d and break the \u201creproductive futurity\u201d of the \u201cnuclear family\u201d and the \u201csexually monogamous marriage\u201d\u2014all of which are considered mechanisms of heterosexual, capitalist oppression. The books selected in many Drag Queen Story Hour performances\u2014Cinderelliot<\/i>,\u00a0If You\u2019re a Drag Queen and You Know It<\/i>,\u00a0The Gender Wheel<\/i>,\u00a0Bye\u00a0Bye, Binary<\/i>, and\u00a0They, She, He, Easy as ABC<\/i>\u2014promote this basic narrative. Though Drag Queen Story Hour events are often billed as \u201cfamily-friendly,\u201d Kornstein and Keenan explain that this is a form of code: \u201cIt may be that DQSH is \u2018family friendly,\u2019 in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is \u2018family friendly\u2019 in the sense of \u2018family\u2019 as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.\u201d That is, the goal is not to reinforce the biological family but to facilitate the child\u2019s transition into the ideological family.<\/p>\n After the norms of gender, sexuality, marriage, and family are called into question, the drag queen can begin replacing this system of values with \u201cqueer ways of knowing and being.\u201d Kornstein and Keenan make no bones about it: the purpose of what they call drag pedagogy, or the \u201cpedagogy of desire,\u201d is about reformulating children\u2019s relationship with sex, sexuality, and eroticism. They describe drag as a \u201csite of queer pleasure\u201d that promises to \u201cturn rejection into desire\u201d and \u201c[transform] the labour of performance into the pleasure of participation,\u201d and DQSH as offering a \u201cqueer relationality\u201d between adult and child. They litter their paper with sexualized language and double entendres, blurring the lines between adult sexuality and childhood innocence. In fact, as the queer pedagogist Hannah Dyer has\u00a0written<\/a>, queer pedagogy and, by extension, drag pedagogy seek to expose the very concept of \u201cchildhood innocence\u201d as an oppressive heteropatriarchal illusion. \u201cApplying queer methods of analysis to studies of childhood can help to queer the rhetoric of innocence that constrains all children and help to refuse attempts to calculate the child\u2019s future before it has the opportunity to explore desire,\u201d Dyer writes.<\/p>\n The purpose, then, is to subvert the system of heteronormativity, which includes childhood innocence, and reengineer childhood sexuality from the ground up. And drag performances provide a visual, symbolic, and erotic method for achieving this. Kornstein and Keenan\u2019s language of the discipline\u2014\u201cpleasure,\u201d \u201cdesire,\u201d \u201cbodies,\u201d \u201cgirls,\u201d \u201cboys,\u201d \u201cglitter,\u201d \u201csequins,\u201d \u201cwigs,\u201d and \u201cheels\u201d\u2014gives it away.<\/p>\n Of course, the organizers of Drag Queen Story Hour understand that they must manage their public image to continue enjoying access to public libraries and public schools. They have learned how to speak in code to NGOs and to appease the anxieties of parents, while subtly promoting the ideology of queer theory to children. While many of Drag Queen Story Hour\u2019s defenders claim that these programs are designed to foster LGBTQ \u201cacceptance\u201d and \u201cinclusion,\u201d Kornstein and Keenan explicitly dismiss those objectives as mere \u201cmarketing language\u201d that provides cover for their real agenda. \u201cThough DQSH publicly positions its impact in \u2018help[ing] children develop empathy, learn about gender diversity and difference, and tap into their own creativity,\u2019 we argue that its contributions can run deeper than morals and role models,\u201d they write. \u201cAs an organization, DQSH may be incentivized to recite lines about alignment with curricular standards and social-emotional learning in order to be legible within public education and philanthropic institutions. Drag itself ultimately does not take these utilitarian aims too seriously (but it is quite good at looking the part when necessary).\u201d In other words, as a movement, Drag Queen Story Hour has learned the dance of operating a cash-flow-positive activist organization, winning government contracts, and securing access to audiences, while providing a plausible rhetorical defense against parents who might question the wisdom of adult men creating \u201csite[s] of queer pleasure\u201d with their children.<\/p>\n This gambit has been remarkably successful. Drag Queen Story Hour began with voluntary programs at public libraries, which are required by law to provide equal access to organizations regardless of political affiliation or ideology. But within a few years, those state-neutral events have turned into state-subsidized drag performances for children. The New York City Council and New York Public Library have provided taxpayer funding directly to the Drag Queen Story Hour nonprofit, sparking a trend of state-subsidized drag readings, dances, and performances across the country. Next, the New York City Public Schools, with more than\u00a0$200,000 in funding<\/a>\u00a0from the municipal government, began hosting\u00a0dozens<\/a>\u00a0of drag performances in elementary, middle, and high schools in all five boroughs. Other political figures seem to want to go even further. The attorney general of Michigan has\u00a0called for<\/a>\u00a0a \u201cdrag queen for every school.\u201d California state senator Scott Wiener has\u00a0suggested in a tweet<\/a>\u00a0that he might propose legislation to offer \u201cDrag Queen 101 as part of the K\u201312 curriculum\u201d and mandate that students attend Drag Queen Story Time as a way to \u201csatisfy the requirement.\u201d Both might have said this tongue in cheek\u2014but in any case, these things have a way of going from joke to reality at the speed of light.<\/p>\n \u201cNew York City began hosting dozens of drag performances in public schools in all five boroughs.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"French](\"https:\/\/media4.manhattan-institute.org\/sites\/cj\/files\/French-philosopher-Michel-Foucault.jpg\" "\\"French")
![\"College](\"https:\/\/media4.manhattan-institute.org\/sites\/cj\/files\/College-professor-Harris-Kornstein-aka-Lil-Miss-Hot-Mess.jpg\" "\\"College")