The Times reports, not very well, on the alleged culture of sexual harassment at Yale.

The article begins by recounting the three incidents already widely reported on:

In 2008, fraternity members photographed themselves in front of the Yale Women’s Center with a poster reading, “We Love Yale Sluts.” In 2009, a widely e-mailed “preseason scouting report” rated the desirability of about 50 newly arrived freshman women by the number of drinks a man would need in order to have sex with them. And in October, fraternity pledges paraded through a residential quadrangle chanting: “No means yes!”

Pretty awful stuff, and as a Yale alum who cares about the institution, it pains me to read how a culture of idiocy at fraternities is demeaning a great campus. I mean, honestly—what were they thinking? In what way is this smart or funny?

Still, here’s the question: This is three incidents in four years. Not great; far from great. This nonsense should never happen.

But does it mean that there is a pervasive culture of sexual harassment at Yale, and that the university administration tolerates it?

After all, all these incidents were perpetrated by fraternities, which the university has no control over. But more than that—they are incidents. There is no sign that they are part of the daily fabric of life on campus which would constitute a “hostile culture.” They may be…but they are not in and of themselves conclusive proof of that.

Buried in the article are a couple of important paragraphs that any lawyer, First Amendment scholar or university administrator will recognize as having the feel of truth:

Administrators said they sympathized with those who were unhappy with the disciplinary process. Punishing students in public episodes like the chanting is complicated by a hallowed tradition of free speech on campus, as well as by fraternities’ independence from the university and by confidentiality requirements that prevent Yale from naming students it disciplines.

The private cases are even more problematic, officials said, with victims often not wanting to go to the police or even a disciplinary board. Some victims prefer to deal with sexual harassment informally — having a male student moved to another dorm, for example. Most do not go to the administration at all: Studies show that nationwide, more than 90 percent of college students who are sexually assaulted do not tell anyone in authority.

Ninety percent of sexually assaulted students—presumably, the vast majority of them women—don’t tell an authority figure? WTF? That needs to change.

Meanwhile, the woman who essentially accused all men at Yale of being rapists reappears, and makes her allegations more specific.

Hannah Zeavin, a junior from Brooklyn who signed the complaint, said she found the question of sexual consent no joking matter. She said that a Yale friend was raped during her first month on campus in 2008, and that she knew of others who had been sexually assaulted.

“If you’re not expelling people who are committing rape, as was the case with my friends’ assailants, that means those men are still around,” she said. “That means that I’ve been in class with them, and I’ve been in parties where there’s more than one of them.”

This is obviously a very serious and deeply upsetting charge, both because of the events it posits and the alleged response, or lack thereof, to them.

But unfortunately, the Times article ends there. No further details are provided, and no one is asked for a response to these grave allegations that multiple women have been raped by a number of men (“my friends’ assailants”) who are now roaming the campus.

True?

It’s possible.

Misinformed?

Well, very few people know all the details of such matters.

Or the allegations of a person who may have complicated motives?

The point is, just as we don’t know what the Title IX lawsuit contains, we don’t know anything about these allegations. They certainly sound bad, though, don’t they?

One suspects the truth is more complicated.

Incidentally, here’s a great example of sloppy journalism. The Times quotes one man in the article—the only male student I’ve seen interviewed in all the articles I’ve read or seen about the Yale lawsuit—and he is sympathetic to the complainants.

Conor Crawford, a junior from Des Moines, said he had detected a tolerance on campus for crude comments about women that contrasted with a greater deference shown to gay and minority students. “There are a lot of close female friends I have here who have felt threatened,” he said. “You can hear the same language in some all-male suites, with the word ‘bitch’ used a lot and just general objectification.”

I was curious about this Conor Crawford—who is he other than some random junior from Des Moines?

So I did about ten seconds of Internet research and found that he’s Facebook friends with Alexandra Brodsky, the most public complainant in the Title IX lawsuit.

(He’s also posted about his entire resume on LinkedIn, which, you know, for a college student…and not even a senior…bleh. But that’s a separate issue.)

So perhaps the Times’ crack reporter might have asked Crawford if he was friends with any of the parties in the lawsuit? Or perhaps found a man—heck, maybe even two—to interview who wasn’t friends with one of the parties in the lawsuit?

Dumb, dumb, dumb…..