> A week later I heard from the investigators. For reasons I wasn’t privy to, the university had hired an outside law firm, based in another Midwestern city an hour-and-a-half flight away... the phrase "billable hours" came to mind
> I’m no expert on legal fees, but I was pretty sure the meter was ticking in $10,000 increments.
> new Title IX complaints have been filed against the faculty-support person who accompanied me to the session with the investigators... Another team of lawyers from the same firm has been appointed to conduct a new investigation.
> At the end of the interrogation, the investigators asked if I wanted to file my own retaliation complaint against the student who’d revealed the charges.
Well, I see one party who's winning it big here.
On a related note, it's obscene how locked-down the process sounds. Forbidding having an attorney present, forbidding the recording of the proceedings, being extremely unwilling to reveal the charges ahead of interrogation so that a defense could be prepared. Is it even legal to forbid recording? Some quick Googling suggests the jurisdiction the author is in is a one-party consent state, but IANAL. What would be the consequences of refusing to accept their terms?
> Also that my tweets were apparently being monitored.
Well, "monitored" is too strong IMO -- really, people just got angry enough to stalk the author on social media until they found something damning. Then again, as this and other pitchfork mob cases show, you may as well treat everything you say or write as if it is monitored; because someday, someone will probably find a reason to dig through it.
This is one of the big problems with these things being handled as "administrative" processes instead of criminal.
You don't have the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to know the charges against you. You don't have the right to face the accused.
This is rule 12 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." - Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I don't think the main problem here is our infatalizing students (although that is certainly a problem, and a part of this story, that I could write at length about). Rather, it seems that the main problem is that we enacted policies with good intentions without considering whether the policies themselves were a good idea. In large part, I think this is true because as a society we are to a large distinguish between criticisms of a policy with criticisms of the stated goal of the policy. [1]. This led to a policy where it is possible for a single person (although in this case it was 2) to initiate the entire inquiry [2]. In a system as large as a university, you have to be prepared for such entities.
[1] More cynically, policymakers want to be seen as doing something, and do not care sufficiently what it is that they are actual doing.
[2] The author did acknowledge this nature of the problem.
> I don't think the main problem here is our infatalizing students [...] Rather, it seems that the main problem is that we enacted policies with good intentions without considering whether the policies themselves were a good idea.
This is the problem with governing in general and is why trying to over-regulate students lives (i.e. "infantilize" them) is such a bad idea. The folly of those who think they can engineer a better society put millions to death in the 20th century. It's kept billions in poverty through today. No one is being killed for their opinions at American colleges, but speaking from first hand experience as a recent graduate, freedom of speech is suffering.
Excellent points! I'd also note that these kinds of policies often have to start out with a hair trigger due to the fundamental asymmetry between the parties; the more powerful have many avenues to shut down the weak, so the weak need large-caliber cannon to take on systemic discrimination.
But when the systems begin to balance out -- not many universities maintain anti-feminist or pro-racist cultures, though I can name a few that do -- then those same powers are easily abused, simply because there aren't significant targets to go after. So, minor figures, often on the same political side as the aggrieved, are attacked using laws that are the equivalent of using grapeshot to kill a goldfish.
Unfortunately, as you point out, it's hard to reform those laws, because when you have people who want to repeal progress entirely, it's hard to distinguish (and, practically, there might not be any difference) between "reform" and "repeal."
But, seriously, young people. What the hell? (And get off my lawn!)
> Unfortunately, as you point out, it's hard to reform those laws, because when you have people who want to repeal progress entirely, it's hard to distinguish (and, practically, there might not be any difference) between "reform" and "repeal."
As somebody who often takes the "reform" side I'd say it's not an accidental misunderstanding when people think I'm saying "repeal". FWICT it stems from a deep and fundamental disrespect for the views of others. It's a common pattern: the default response to someone being critical of any social justice movement is an accusation of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. Honestly it's why I try to only discuss these things anonymously on the internet where it isn't so risky.
While I generally agree with your statements, it is important to note that in this case, the article's author has been arguing that any "fundamental asymmetries" between students and faculty are largely illusory, and such hair-trigger policies are detrimental for all parties in the long run, regardless of the policy lending any pressure to the cultural or legal "balance" within the institute.
It takes just a tiny bit of epistemic humility to understand why due process is good and star chambers are bad. It goes way beyond infantilization, you have have to train people counter to the history of Western civilization to make them reject these things. The fact that universities are embracing it should be a giant societal red flag.
Exactly. The issue is not the politics or even the personalities involved. After all, these are perennial sources of conflict abd yet they don't invariably produce the awful results seen here.
What does produce these results is terrible governance. The "system" described here is a case study in how not to handle dispute resolution.
I lay blame squarely at the feet of the demonstrably overpaid "leadership" at Northwestern who allowed these procedures to take root in the first place.
That only works if this issue is isolated to NWU, but it isn't. Members of the social justice movement using claims of victimhood to stifle free speech is a national and in some cases international problem.
Since the political beliefs involved are common across cases they becomes a prime suspect. Bureaucracy exists in many of the cases as well, but it's only one tool that this group uses to further their agenda.
Sorry, not buying that. Just because the sentiments involve extend beyond Northwestern does not mean the Northwestern needs to accept - and indeed, support - an egregiously flawed system for resolving conflicts.
This is a basic sanitation issue. If you run your university that badly, problems like this are a mathematical certainty. The specific set of grievances is immaterial. If it's not one, it will be another.
The problem is not what they believe. The problem the obviously abusive and amoral approach the people in question have taken in acting on those beliefs.
I'll add one more thing and then let it go because (respectfully) I don't think we're going to agree. Only ideology could make someone cling to a measurably harmful idea and insist it's still actually a good idea.
I think you're absolutely right about the negative power that ideology can have in terms of getting (some) people to say that the ends justify means, no matter how atrocious. However, I wouldn't say it's the only thing that can cause people to defend the indefensible.
Indeed, for some, ideology itself in the means to an end, and these people can be quite flexible about how seriously they take it depending on how well it supports their more fundamental goal, which is raw dominance.
But since you asked, no, there's no moral equivalence here. The reason why people who get raped, abused, etc. are not responsible for the crimes and assaults committed by others because they have a basic right to walk around freely and securely.
However, governments (or people charged with the responsibility for governance) don't have the same right to operate without being targeted by assholes. That's because a major part of their job is dealing with assholes. It is literally what they get paid to do. So unlike people (who are generally not paid to deal with rape threats or worse), the people who are paid to deal with assholes cannot accept their giant salaries then turn around and say "hey, we're subjected a bunch of toxic assholes."
This is about as unreasonable as a divorce lawyer getting upset because of exposure to people having distressingly sharp conflicts over irreconcilable differences. Seriously, if you have a problem taking out the trash, don't accept work in waste management.
Professors are supposed to challenge the thought processes of their students so this is more like a trash collector facing lawsuits for dealing with trash in a way that makes a few people angry. It does students no favors to coddle them throughout college instead of preparing them for the real world where nobody cares if it's inconvenient for them to deal with other people's opinions. College is meant to prepare people for the real world.
It's not awful for me to point out that I see people who are the victims of morally wrong actions being blamed for what's happening to them. Who's doing the blaming just makes it ironic.
Recently read an article from a femnist Harvard prof, which defines this contention as feminists not managing the transition between an Advocacy (victimization) standpoint, and Governance (legitimacy).
This is the logical conclusion of title IX, which is the education version of section VII of the civil rights act.
Both define discrimination in such a broad way, that expressing an opinion could be considered as discrimination. Whether that opinion is "girls are not as smart as boys on average" or "political correctness has gone too far" is a detail. In principal, holding any incorrect opinion could indicate a bias that leads to discrimination.
If a university professor is standing up in front of class and saying, "It's just my opinion, but girls are not as smart as boys on average," then it's hard to see how that wouldn't come part and parcel with some sort of gender-based discrimination.
It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing.
"It's my opinion that girls are not as smart as boys on average, but I will treat everyone in my class fairly" doesn't pass the sniff test for believability.
It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing.
This is a great example of the kind of reasoning I was talking about. Because of your political beliefs you have determined that no reasonable person thinks "girls are not as smart as boys". From this you conclude that the only reason a person would conclude this, is because of some deeper bias against women. Therefore you conclude that such a person is very likely to treat women unfairly in the classroom.
Your political beliefs have become law, because the law interprets discrimination in a way that is informed by your beliefs.
EDIT: After more research, the government's advice is that title IX never applies to protected speech alone [0]. So saying "girls are less intelligent than boys" in fact could never, in itself, violate title IX. However, the definition of harassment is so vague that it's understandable that universities can't figure out how to reconcile the first amendment with title IX.
[0] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.htmlHarassment, however, to be prohibited by the statutes within OCR's jurisdiction, must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive. Under OCR's standard, the conduct must also be considered sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program. Thus, OCR's standards require that the conduct be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position, considering all the circumstances, including the alleged victim’s age.
Actually, it's from an evidentiary position that I think no reasonable person would hold the opinion "girls are not as smart as boys". Just like I think no reasonable person would hold the opinion "The summer sky is typically green". Both are wrong, but one suggests that half of someone's students won't get a fair shake.
As far as I can tell, you're the one politicizing speech here.
A reasonable person, lets say a neurologist or developmental psychologist, might very well say there are differing levels of intelligence between girls and boys. It depends on what you're measuring. When they study intelligence closely enough, there are absolutely differences between the sexes. I don't think it's sexist to say that girls are generally better at interpersonal communications than boys (a form of intelligence). Even if it's that debatable (and I'm sure it is), moving from a disagreement on opinions to a title IX complaint is not warranted.
And in a class about neurology or developmental psychology, putting it to a question, "are boys smarter than girls?" and then using that to explore different kinds of intelligence, is a very different thing from a professor in an unrelated field declaring, "It's my opinion that girls are less intelligent than boys, blah blah, office hours at 3pm on Wednesdays, etc.."
One is ok, the other suggests a bias that's going to cut half the class off at the knees.
Isn't the statement "girls are not as smart as boys on average" precisely the type of speech we want professors to have the freedom to say. Unless you want to close of an entire line of inquiry to investigation and scrutiny.
The analogy is to show how knowledge of the mean of a population group does not preclude impartial treatment of any individual in that group.
Or to pick an example with with similar moral connotations: "It's my opinion that black people have higher blood pressure than Asian people on average, but I will treat every patient fairly."
Would this (accurate) opinion prevent a doctor from providing appropriate care to hypertensive Asian patients?
She was attacked and subjected to significant legal harassment, merely because she wrote an op-ed on sexual politics on campus, and some people didn’t like her opinion. They then used the badly written Title IX law, passed in 1972 by Congress to “deal with gender discrimination in public education”, to get her, and her supporters, charged and interrogated repeatedly by lawyers.
Her accusers were allowed to remain anonymous. She was denied the right to use a lawyer. The specific charges against her were never provided in writing. And they were apparently based merely on the fact that her op-ed offended her accusers.
Since the attacks against her were instigated by the students, who represent our future, this story will give you a good sense of where our society is heading. And it ain’t paradise.
Interesting, I didn't know the common law definition, but I did know the maritime law definition, but can't remember where from... I think it was from a David Eddings book from my child-hood.
"In maritime law, barratry is the commission of an act by the master or mariners of a vessel for an unlawful or fraudulent purpose that is contrary to the duty owed to the owners, by which act the owners sustain injury." [1]
I was with you until the last paragraph. The actions of just two students isn't enough to get a good sense of where our society is heading. On the contrary, if society condoned the students' actions, they wouldn't need a badly-written law to threaten this professor.
"Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt." said Horace, in 20 BC.
The author might not believe this, but I can't help to think that she was specifically targeted as a woman who went 'off the reservation'. And that the intent of this was to limit this woman's academic freedom. I don't know the specifics of title IX, but she might have a case.
If you look at ex-feminists who have strayed from the group they're treated much like (many) Christians treat ex-Christians.
People who "knew the truth but turned their back on it" get a special level of disdain from groups with strong ideologies, in their eyes it's worse than being ignorant of the truth.
That being said it's hard to imagine the author receiving more venom than all the men who wouldn't have dreamed to write such an article.
University's seem to have some ulterior motive in the way they approach Title IX complaints. There are several cases - this one included - where the OCR's Title IX guidance says to do one thing, but the university seems to do something completely differently.
The original 1972 document is useless to read. The OCR wrote revised guidance in 2001, and further clarified in an April 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter. These documents are both very clearly written.
The coordinator's job here, IMO, should have been clearcut. The 2001 Guidance explains that his or her first task would be to determine whether the OPs conduct denied a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the program:
In assessing sexually harassing conduct, it is important for schools to recognize that two distinct issues are considered. The first issue is whether, considering the types of harassment discussed in the following section, the conduct denies or limits a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the program based on sex.' If it does, the second issue is the nature of the school's responsibility to address that conduct. As discussed in a following section, this issue depends in part on the identity of the harasser and the context in which the harassment occurred.
The complainant's made a crafty argument for how the OpEd limited their educational experience, but their argument is also specifically excluded in the "First Amendment" section of the 2001 Guidance:
In cases of alleged harassment, the protections of the First Amendment must be considered if issues of speech or expression are involved. [112] Free speech rights apply in the classroom (e.g., classroom lectures and discussions) [113] and in all other education programs and activities of public schools (e.g., public meetings and speakers on campus; campus debates, school plays and other cultural events [114]; and student newspapers, journals, and other publications [115]). In addition, First Amendment rights apply to the speech of students and teachers. [116]
Title IX is intended to protect students from sex discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech. OCR recognizes that the offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by some students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a sexually hostile environment under Title IX. [117] In order to establish a violation of Title IX, the harassment must be sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the education program. [118]
Moreover, in regulating the conduct of its students and its faculty to prevent or redress discrimination prohibited by Title IX (e.g., in responding to harassment that is sufficiently serious as to create a hostile environment), a school must formulate, interpret, and apply its rules so as to protect academic freedom and free speech rights. For instance, while the First Amendment may prohibit a school from restricting the right of students to express opinions about one sex that may be considered derogatory, the school can take steps to denounce those opinions and ensure that competing views are heard. The age of the students involved and the location or forum may affect how the school can respond consistently with the First Amendment.
Unless there's more to the complaint than the OP reveals, this should never have been investigated.
I would love to know if there's been new precedent set since 2011 that would make the university's response here seem more appropriate. Does anyone know?
"State and federal courts — not OCR — have the final say in determining relevant due process requirements. Courts are likely to give accused students a right to legal assistance"
(OCR is the DoE Office of Civil Rights which controls Title IX)
Yes, this was a red flag in the article. She's a tenured professor being attacked by a pair of anonymous malicious students who could destroy her career with one false, perverse accusation, with impunity? And the idiot administration is taking these accusers seriously enough to hire an out of town law firm to prosecute the case? She should definitely have lawyered up and threatened a big, glaringly public, embarrassing lawsuit. Bureaucrats are cowards, in general, and such a tenuous case would likely have been dropped.
Yeah, the minute someone, anyone, tells me I don't have a right to a lawyer is the minute I tell them "My lawyer will be in contact regarding that assertion."
Schools are allowed to set their own policies on legal representation in internal matters (except where stipulated by law). It's only when a dispute hits the legal system that a right to an attorney is sacrosanct.
The author is writing a book titled "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation"; and dared to suggest in this article [1] that radical feminism-influenced policies were turning college campuses into a version of middle school. There was no way she was not going to be attacked by said radical feminists and "triggered" students.
Of course, the people who currently benefit from it (the hordes of administrators who enforce these ridiculous policies) are never going to admit that they are in the wrong, or that they should allow for more reasoned due process. Hopefully, enough people read articles like this, and realize that Title IX is a complete farce. Pressuring legislators to throw out Title IX is the only sensible course of action against it.
Pressuring legislators to throw out Title IX is the only sensible course of action against it.
Do you disagree with the principle of Title IX (i.e. that federal money should not fund educational activities that discriminate on the basis of sex), or is it that Title IX has led to bad events and the only way to stop those bad events is to remove Title IX?
The latter. The majority of Title IX complaints today have nothing to do with federal funding of men's athletics programs, which was what the law was originally written to address.
The one thing I'm not clear on is why she didn't consult with a lawyer to begin with. They might have said to her that a lawyer couldn't be present, but I think that might have changed if she'd talked to one anyway.
I would go so far as to say that if you're in a dispute with anyone and they tell you you're not allowed to have a lawyer present, you damn well better have a lawyer present.
And that's the problem of being a moderate leftist trying to defend yourself against radical leftists, unless you can get the ACLU to pick up your case you have to turn to outside groups like the far right, who you don't understand, for help.
This would be a risky case for a leftist lawyer to take pro bono because they may face a severe political backlash for it.
To a moderate leftist in a fight with radical leftists, libertarians are "far right" which roughly translates to non-mainstream right.
The point is the policing powers of the radical left are such that when a member of the moderate left is chosen for public castigation their peers don't want to get involved. Like the author said, she's getting a lot of silent support from people who aren't daring to go public with their support. The reason libertarians are happy to get involved publicly is they're far outside the political left so the radical left holds very little power over them.
A moderate leftist reaching out to Ken White for help would be like a centrist republican contacting the ACLU, that's a lot of trust to place in people that you normally disagree with.
edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted here, just trying to explain why it might be difficult for the author to find pro-bono legal help from within her existing social network.
When did being an adult stop meaning being an adult? If you're old enough to be in college, you're old enough to respect other people even if you disagree with them (and especially so if you disagree with them because you're wrong).
This has nothing to do with rape or feminism or any other of these issues: it has to do with respect and self-respect, neither of these the student body at that school seems to be rich in.
If we feel righteous in empowering 18 year olds with the tools of war and dispatching them to rain down our wrath - and perhaps be killed in the act - then they should be treated with the same capacity for adult thought and reason as anyone else - and with it the same great responsibility that comes with adulthood.
To that point, I think they (18+ year olds) should be allowed to drink, too, but that's a topic for a different day.
I've not read this article, but I did read her original article. The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?) and then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases. I'm surprised anyone thought this was a good idea to publish and I'm not surprised it had repercussions (though I've not read the latest article to find out what they were and if they were an overreaction).
What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students, followed by a story of an author being harassed by an editor, followed by the argument that if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life. That's not even internally consistent on several levels.
1) "The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?)"
- But should she be subjected to an investigation for writing a "naive" article? I think not, as surely the freedom of thought includes the freedom to have "wrong" opinions?
(2) "then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases."
-Disagree. These cases are in the public record. Why shouldn't she mention them? It's not as if she has sworn confidentiality or she had inside information.
(3) "What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students"
- I don't think this is an accurate summary at all. You don't have to agree with her opinion, her point was that the new attitudes she's complaining about greatly exaggerate the power of professors over students. A professor has the power to give a student a bad grade or write them a bad recommendation. A student has the power to complain about the professor to the dean/chair and give him/her a bad evaluation. If a student alleges sexual harassment or assault the professor's career could be destroyed even if the charges are not proven. Basically a professor has some power, but not some kind of unlimited power over individual students, which seems to be what is being alleged.
(4) "if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life."
-Nope. I would phrase it as "If students are overly coddled and swaddled they will not develop psychological coping skills to deal with a real world which is not going to exquisitely cater to their sensitivities".
If free speech only applies to government suppression of speech, then what would be the problem with a movie studio refusing to hire actors or directors who had been involved in the Communist Party?
Running a system of justice is expensive, difficult, and subject to failures. Failures are injustices. If we as a society decide that universities should run their own justice systems, we must accept that it will cost a lot of money and result in some amount of injustice. If that means denying education to some that cannot afford it, that is a trade-off that we must acknowledge it or increase public funding of universities.
When a good idea (e.g., equitable treatment of people) gets branded with a label (e.g., feminism), it opens the door for fools to start identifying with the label. By their mass, they change its meaning over time, then vilify anyone who doesn’t self-identify with the label—even those who believe in the original idea.
There are a few possible remedies here. One is to vehemently deny that these people are feminists, and recapture the label. Another is to not identify as anything, and just follow the ideas—but it’s hard for most people to be that egoless.
> When a good idea (e.g., equitable treatment of people) gets branded with a label (e.g., feminism),
Feminism isn't just a "good idea". It has a lot of baggage about what that exactly means that not every reasonable person is going to agree with (such as equal opportunity vs. equal outcomes), and the underlying theories and ways to achieve whatever they are trying to achieve.
Saying that feminism is just a "good idea" is kind of like putting all political ideas and movements into one soup as "good ideas" if their ultimate goals are well-meaning. It just so happens that feminism has an ideological monopoly on gender matters... but that doesn't mean that Feminism==gender matters.
I agree. I didn’t say feminism is a good idea. I said equitable treatment of people is a good idea, and that feminism is a label with baggage, exactly as you’re saying.
Did you even read the article? The author self-identifies as a feminist. Your implication that this is about feminism vs not-feminism is simplistic and missing the point.
Well, broadly speaking feminists tend to agree with these Title IX "inquisitions". Her declaring to be a feminist doesn't really mean that feminists tend to agree with her.
Hello. I am one survey point for you. I believe women should have equal political and social rights, which makes me a feminist.
I massively disagree with the general thrust of these "inquisitions" as discussed in the article, although the original Title IX, if I understand it, was meant to be about equalising opportunity[1] and not about whatever this is all about.
So by the dictionary definition, you are a feminist (and, of course, based on your advocacy of social and political rights for women, I and anybody else using a dictionary would describe you as a feminist, no matter how much you insist that you're not).
What definition are you using that means that you're not, and what's the source of that definition? It's not really fair for you to be using a different definition without saying so in advance.
I reject the feminist narrative of history, the feminist view of gender and the feminist idea of patriarchy. Basically the majority of the social critique that is the backbone of feminism. I'm also deeply suspicious of the notion that feminism as a movement is interested in equality and not power.
Being called feminist because I believe in social and political equality is like being called a Christian because I think heaven sounds like a wonderful place. But IMHO if you don't believe in Jesus you're not a Christian and if you don't believe in the feminist social critique you're not a feminist.
I have never heard of an -ism that people don't personally choose to identify with, and instead other people dictate that they are part of against their will.
I think that the social discourse is moving in a place where badthink, crimethink, goodthink and so on can be used unironically. That makes me feel unsafe, chilled, terrified and having a visceral reaction.
Hell, just look at "gamergate" from the past year... Even without mentioning a side, or even which way you lean or assign a viewpoint a mention of the situation garners a visceral response. I myself had only seen it in passing mention a bunch on twitter a pro/anti gamergate and it took a lot of effort to even dig into wtf was going on.
Even then it was absurd. I think that people need to grow the hell up, and develop a little bit of a thick skin here. I also agree with other comments, any legal charges are best met with legal council, and I don't think the law firm in question is driven by proper motives, which should be to establish if the charges have merit and what corrective actions to take if they do. It seems more about perpetuating murky legal maneuvering.
The people whose home addresses were published, along with death threats of unknown credibility (i.e. they could be credible, they could be jokes, how can you tell at a glance?) don't need a thicker skin; the rest of us need to make sure that menacing behavior doesn't happen.
It's all fun and games until the death threats/doxxing happen. (That's where we go from actual civil or uncivil discourse, which should always be ok, to something that's never appropriate/ok.)
"It’s not that I didn’t make my share of mistakes, or act stupidly and inchoately, but it was embarrassing, not traumatizing." [1]
I think this is an important point. These kids can't tell being embarrassed from being traumatized. Presumably this woman embarrassed herself by getting too drunk to perform in bed, so she felt traumatized, and the idiotic professor was the obvious scapegoat.
And when the infantilized man- and womanchildren are dragged out of their "safe spaces" to face real criticism for their embarrasing ideas, it's a traumatic experience, so who else to blame, but those who criticise them? In that mindset it's easy to imagine the op-ed as a retaliation.
Imagine if some company was dealing with a lawsuit related to sexual harassment, and some mid-level executive of the company wrote a prominent article mentioning the case, their own position, and criticizing the victim's story...
I don't understand how she's shocked that this could be taken as retaliation. It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint.
If you think professors should be more 'free' than corporate executive, how do you ensure the students aren't more vulnerable than corporate employees?
This is a person in a high status position mocking someone for being intimidated.
> It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint.
Read the article carefully. The student that filed the complaint wasn't the one who she mentioned in the previous article. It was someone she had "mentioned fleetingly" -- so looking at the previous article [1], it might be the grad student that the professor had previously dated, and that he subsequently filed a lawsuit against. His reasons for doing so are not mentioned in the article.
I fail to see how mentioning that the professor filed a lawsuit against someone he had previously dated is retaliatory. It is a simple statement of fact, and if anything, paints the professor in a bad light.
You can make a lot of propaganda by choosing facts.
>>"The professor sued for defamation various colleagues, administrators, and a former grad student whom, according to his complaint, he had previously dated; "
She's repeating a 'fact' out of the professor's complaint, while leaving out the supposedly defaming statements. The additional relevant information might include the conditions under which they started and stopped dating, or if it happened at all.
So this person said something about a sexual assault suspect, then got sued for it, and he said they had dated. Then some other professor writes about her, and nothing about what actually happened. (And we, still now, are mainly relying on that other professor's narrative.) And the article she's mentioned in is extremely dismissive of the whole situation.
So who's getting attacked for free speech and stating facts here?
Let's not forget the professor's most recent book "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation (Metropolitan Books, 2014)."
The allegedly defaming statements that the professor was suing over are irrelevant, since she is citing these lawsuits for their existence, not their content.
> You can make a lot of propaganda by choosing facts.
Like you did by choosing to only quote half of her sentence? The full sentence was "The professor sued for defamation various colleagues, administrators, and a former grad student whom, according to his complaint, he had previously dated; a judge dismissed those suits this month".
I'm not sure of the relevance of this sentence, but since I just read the original piece, it may be relevant that the original text didn't have the "according to his complaint" bit until they made a correction.
Presumably this means the professor is suing someone he claimed to be dating, who denies that they dated, and again presumably that person has made some claim about the professors sexual conduct.
I live in the UK and people writing about on-going court cases need to be very careful how they do it or they risk heavy fines, sometimes even prison, for contempt.
I'm not sure why you're so heavily downvoted. What you're saying doesn't seem so outlandish: be careful when you blog about stuff that's currently being litigated.
> I’m no expert on legal fees, but I was pretty sure the meter was ticking in $10,000 increments.
> new Title IX complaints have been filed against the faculty-support person who accompanied me to the session with the investigators... Another team of lawyers from the same firm has been appointed to conduct a new investigation.
> At the end of the interrogation, the investigators asked if I wanted to file my own retaliation complaint against the student who’d revealed the charges.
Well, I see one party who's winning it big here.
On a related note, it's obscene how locked-down the process sounds. Forbidding having an attorney present, forbidding the recording of the proceedings, being extremely unwilling to reveal the charges ahead of interrogation so that a defense could be prepared. Is it even legal to forbid recording? Some quick Googling suggests the jurisdiction the author is in is a one-party consent state, but IANAL. What would be the consequences of refusing to accept their terms?
> Also that my tweets were apparently being monitored.
Well, "monitored" is too strong IMO -- really, people just got angry enough to stalk the author on social media until they found something damning. Then again, as this and other pitchfork mob cases show, you may as well treat everything you say or write as if it is monitored; because someday, someone will probably find a reason to dig through it.