The Voice of Denial
Posted on April 14th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 80 Comments »
I got a pingback on my blog—that basically means someone referenced me in another blog—from a blog called “Hell Funny.” The author of the blog is a writer for an alternative newspaper and a self-described survivor of sexual assault. (She says she was in “an abusive relationship,” but, at least in this post, doesn’t give any specifics. In this blog post, she does, but the definition of sexual assault that she seems to be suggesting is…well, you be the judge.)
The argument of this woman: Journalism has let her and other sexual assault victims down by questioning Jackie’s story.
She writes:
How could Richard Bradley, the editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, be so dismissive as to reduce the account to “apocryphal tropes”? How can journalism, the profession that I so deeply love and the field that saved me, be failing me as a survivor of the trauma that has so shaped the journalist I am?
Journalists calling for higher level of scrutiny in sexual assault stories, or suggesting that more cases be treated as potential false reports, are not improving journalism. They are falling back on rape-culture tropes and weighing survivors down with an even heavier burden of proof than the one we must already carry. Instead, they should be educating themselves on the realities of trauma and focusing on how to improve their reporting on sexual violence.
She posted this today, by the way.
I’m all for learning more about the realities of trauma and reporting on sexual violence if that’s what you’re covering. But there’s a problem: Jackie’s story wasn’t about sexual violence. It was about an emotionally disturbed girl who appears to have been engaging in catfishing to make someone jealous. The only sexual manipulation that we know for sure happened here was perpetuated by Jackie.
So that line about how “journalists calling for a higher level of scrutiny in sexual assault stories…are not improving journalism?” Sorry, I can’t agree. A higher level of scrutiny would have saved people an enormous amount of pain in the Tawana Brawley case…the Duke lacrosse case…the Patrick Witt case…and the University of Virginia case. (I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.)
It doesn’t mean we abandon sensitivity when reporting on those who allege rape; journalists should be sensitive to the victims of any crimes, especially ones that are deeply physically and emotionally painful. It does mean that we don’t abandon our professionalism.
80 Responses
4/14/2015 10:13 pm
I do believe that in her rush to judge you, she really missed one the point: that you are one of the first people to question the dominant narrative that the Rolling Stone’s story is true. Seems to me that she is under the impression that you are joining the fray AFTER the truth of the story is questioned.
In essence, she is the adherent of the so-called narrative journalism where fact is thrown overboard to fit the narrative.
4/14/2015 10:59 pm
To me, judging Bradley witgout reading the Coll CSJ report or T Rees Shapiro work in Washington Post or Erderly’s apology (however inadequate) is to “set back” survivors. In other words…to survivors…there is an imposter among you, who took up your cause as their own without having lived it.
Really, how can any survivor see Jackie’s story as their own? It isn’t. And believing the fictitious and now thouroughly And officially! discredited story is to condemn other innocent people who did nothing to you. The mindless persecution needs to stop. No, survivors…you lived serious trauna. But that doesn’t give the right to condemn the innocent. No way.
Two wrongs do not a right make. And at uva how could it be set that the case for survivors is threatened? It isnt…it is stronger than ever at uva.
Sorry, two wrongs dont make a right. Look how survivors distanced thenselves fromJackie - Renda did (“i dont know what to believe!”). Seccuro did (“not possible”) and raised the possibility Jackie “stole” her story or Erderly did a cut and paste job. So if you want false accounts, by all means line up behind a rolling stone story that no longer exists. But if you want credibility…stop linking to Jackie’s story. She betrayed YOUR cause, not the other way around. Bending the facts to serve a motive is not how reporting…letting facts get in the way of a good story?
Sorry, missing the boat. There are real events and real victims. Your ire is best directed elsewhere…forgive Jackie, but dont rush to the defense of oneone who used your cause for their own purposes, none of which help anyone. And not unlike other whoppers that sadly exist, whether in politics or elsewhere.
4/15/2015 12:02 am
That blog post was obviously written a while ago. It’s not even clear who it was written by, or, for that matter, what in the world the blog itself is about, or who is even behind it. Looks like an aggregating site of some kind, possibly operated by robots.
4/15/2015 12:05 am
Ahhh, here’s the original BuzzFeed post:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annawalsh/on-being-a-journalist-and-a-sexual-assault-survivor
It’s not connected to the other posts on the Hell Funny blog. Many of them appear to have been pulled from BuzzFeed, too. Different authors….
4/15/2015 12:06 am
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annawalsh/on-being-a-journalist-and-a-sexual-assault-survivor
4/15/2015 12:24 am
Google reveals that Anna Walsh, a copy editor at the Baltimore City Paper, wrote the original post for BuzzFeed, published Dec. 6th. Back when you were awfully lonely in your skepticism, Richard.
That story you linked to about New Mexico and motorcycles and an allegedly abusive ex-boyfriend was written by someone else, Leigh Stein, also for BuzzFeed, published Sept. 9th.
4/15/2015 12:24 am
The irony is that this woman appears to be furious over the fact that Jackie WASN’T viciously gang-raped at all.
4/15/2015 7:26 am
Mike, got to agree with that.
4/15/2015 9:05 am
Although the article was written at an earlier time, the question remains whether the author of that piece should be writing about sexual violence from a journalistic perspective.
Given what she has written, she seems to be struggling with her experiences and even work-conversations and scrutiny seem to send her into a rage (“sat for hours with my hands shaking” because some workers questioned the story).
I’m not a fan of activists who “listen and believe”, but it seems that this is the role she sees for herself and other journalists. But it’s the role friends and family should play for a person who says s/he was victim of a sexual assault.
But a journalist — they should adhere to a different standard. They should “listen and question”. Without “victim blaming”, without “slut shaming”, but they should be able to ask critical questions. They should have integrity and pursue “the truth”, or at least close enough.
(BTW, “listen and believe” is also not an attitude the general public should have. If the general public “listen and believes”, you have a lynch mob on your hands. This is something for family/friends and the justice system. It’s not something for the court of public opinion until there’s a verdict.)
If she is unable to put her personal experiences aside, to move past them (e.g., with therapy), then she is doing her profession a disservice. And when it comes to anger — I’d be angry at disturbed people who make false accusations. They are the ones hurting people — the falsely accused, and the actual victims of sexual assault. And I think most people are perfectly able to see actual victims of sexual assault as different from people who make false accusations — at least, if there was a through investigation.
4/15/2015 9:05 am
“…trauma that has so shaped the journalist I am…”
Journalism should be as unbiased as possible and should rely on the personal conceptions/beliefs of the journalist as little as possible. True journalism should report a story as clearly and concisely in order for the reader to get the most accurate portrayal of events and the most relevant information. Clearly this is one area where Sabrina Erdely failed. Further, maybe the industry needs to come up with some standardized vocabulary so that “journalists” and others can accurately define different types of “journalism.” Narrative, one-sided pieces are different than balanced pieces, yellow-journalism shouldn’t be read as a fair or at least total accounting, pieces that are reported in a manner to appeal to the politics of their readership should be defined as such. The fact that so many people read, watch, or listen to the news and believe that what is reported is accurate portrayal of the facts is doing a lot of damage to society and to our planet.
4/15/2015 11:27 am
It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that so many women don’t want to give up the “rape culture” false narrative. They’ve conflated so many activities with real rape that THEY’VE actually become the worst enemies that a real victim of real rape could ever have. But they’re making a lot of money off of that false narrative, so they’ll fight to keep those paychecks coming.
4/15/2015 11:41 am
This individual is even more repulsive and frightening to me than both Jackie Coakley and SRE combined.
4/15/2015 8:42 pm
I agree on the dangers of “listen and believe” - that’s how you create some of the worst tragedies. Listen and believe was the way to war in a lot of countries - it’s really the path to many places not worth going.
Reality is that some people game the system that others rely on. As a person I don’t expect a person on the podium sharing their assault story to be telling a false one - but then again I don’t think immigration agents that could “check the box” on an asylum applicant should necessarily “trust without verifying” also - some people aren’t who they say they are. It’s just a fact of life. It’s not that everyone does it - but it’s that someone could be doing it.
Sadly this leads to some paranoia but also could lead to healthy scrutiny. Everyone needs to be able to ask some hard questions and weigh evidence. Blind belief is really the road down the tubes.
4/15/2015 9:22 pm
I skimmed through the “hellfunny” blogpost. The thing that came through loud and clear for me was that as far as sexual assault is concerned, the author of it is not operating as a “journalist” but as a propagandist/activist.
I’m left wondering: how ethical is it to have someone who claims to be a victim of sexual assault and who professes to be horrendously scarred by her experiences cover the topic of rape in her work as a “journalist”? If I was the editor of a newspaper, she’s the last sort of person I’d want working on such a sensitive topic. This isn’t to say that someone who was a victim of particular crime could not be objective in covering it as a journalist…provided they could compartmentalize things, but that blogpost screams that the author is never going to be that way about that topic.
4/16/2015 1:14 am
The hellfunny post is hilarious and tragic at the same time.
No one ever cared enough about the author to give her useful, real world advice about choosing romantic and/or sexual partners.
So she falls for a charismatic and mentally unbalanced loser and then dutifully works through every cliche that that life scenario offers _and_expects people to care…. yikes!
4/16/2015 7:41 am
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article a few days ago (April 10:
In Campus Rape Tribunals, Some Men See Injustice
(I’m posting it here because this is the current thread.)
4/16/2015 12:50 pm
The argument — that anyone who claims to be a certain type of victim should be permitted to victimize other, innocent people simply because of her claim to be a victim — is immoral and repugnant. Period.
[and that’s a real period, not a barack period.]
4/16/2015 12:55 pm
The WSJ article referenced above suggests an entrepreneurial opportunity.
Presumably not every guy who is subject to college discipline for alleged sexual misconduct but who either wasn’t charged criminally or was acquitted has the money for legal action, and it might be difficult for them to find an attorney willing to do it on a contingency basis (for whatever reason). In fact the fund might be able to provide better lawyers than a guy could get on a contingency basis because we would be paying them win or lose.
We could start a crowdfunding campaign to fund these sorts of cases. In return for 40% of any potential awards, we would hire the attorneys (who would vet the case to see if we had a good chance of winning) and prosecute it. Anyone who invested would receive the same percentage of the award won after expenses as their original contribution represented of the total initial fund.
We could take the idea even further and sue those women who make claims that turn out to be ‘false.’
What do you think SE? Can we count on an investment from you?
4/16/2015 4:38 pm
We on the Left sometimes tell Lies; lies about rape, racism, inequality, etc. We like to do this by making our narrative so vague that we talk evils as “structural” or “privilege”, but then the Right ruins all our fun by insisting these vagaries be supported by, you know, facts.
4/16/2015 6:03 pm
“We could take the idea even further and sue those women who make claims that turn out to be ‘false.’”
Respectfully, don’t go further on this tangent, as you are giving ammunition to the wrong people. There are barely any cases like Jackie’s, where you could prove that the accused is outright lying. There are also very few cases where the accused can outright prove their innocence, yet the burden of proof is being placed on them, both tacitly and formally. Don’t encourage convictions or retribution through low and deeply unjust standards of evidence.
Also, consider that an accusation may be false even if the accuser believes that they were raped. I could believe that Jane Doe in the infuriating Occidental case came to believe or was convinced by others that she had been raped. Yet there is documented evidence of her consent before, during, and after the sex from multiple sources, in addition to the no-brainer evidence that she was not incapacitated.
A false accusation and a belief in having been raped are not mutually exclusive. That’s why both journalism and liberal justice principles must look beyond people’s emotional truth! It is the unjust campus regulations for handling rape, the disturbingly expanded definitions of rape and sexual assault, and a campus climate that does not uphold liberal values and civil rights is what we need to reform. Not to target individuals.
4/16/2015 6:08 pm
There are barely any cases like Jackie’s, where you could prove that the accused is outright lying.
For the sake of clarity, I obviously meant accuser.
4/17/2015 5:37 am
Mary: It’s worth digging up Carol Tavris’s talk at the most recent Amazing Meeting, where she makes it clear that there are many ways an accusing can be not telling the truth but not lying either. She points out three overlooked factors in campus sexual assault allegations:
1) The ambiguous nature of sexual negotiations, where a women is expected to say “no” initially even if she does want sex.
2) The effects of alcohol.
3) The nature of memory: our memories of an event are heavily influenced by latter events. For example, an encounter that someone would remember as benign before a bitter breakup might be rememered as sinister afterwards.
4/17/2015 5:38 am
This really must be National Misspell “accuser” Week.
4/17/2015 10:03 am
Mary is exactly right on IO’s obnoxious idea, although she is quite wrong on many other things.
In addition, IO, your idea is illegal in most states under the doctrine of “champerty and maintenance.” Law firms can bankroll such actions on contingency, but third parties are discouraged from doing so under the common law, and the contracts by which they do so are, if champertous, banned as against public policy.
Champertous champertous champertous. Outstanding word.
4/17/2015 10:10 am
Wikipedia chooses Ohio as an example. The Supreme Court of that state said:
“’The doctrines of champerty and maintenance were
developed at common law to prevent officious intermeddlers from stirring up strife and contention by vexatious and speculative litigation which would disturb
the peace of society, lead to corrupt practices, and prevent the remedial process of the law.’ … ‘[Champerty] is an offense against public justice, as it keeps alive strife and contention, and perverts the remedial process of the law into an engine of oppression.’ We have also said ‘that the law of Ohio will tolerate no lien in or out of the [legal]
profession, as a general rule, which will prevent litigants from compromising, or settling their controversies, or which, in its tendencies, encourages, promotes, or
extends litigation.’ ”
Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp., 99 Ohio St.3d 121, 2003-Ohio-2721
4/17/2015 11:22 am
Mary — Thanks for your civil reply.
I wasn’t really being serious,.. I was merely making the point that many of the falsely accused don’t have the resources to defend themselves, and that society should charge and punish the Lena Dunhams and the Jackies who make these demonstrably false claims — given that claiming to be raped seems to be the new badge of sisterhood, if there are no repercussions, we can only expect the number of these incidents to increase if we don’t. I’m not normally given to gratuitous provocation, but I’ll plead to doing so in the case of SE because he is such a repugnant and odious troll.
It’s more than a little ironic that SE should quote the case that he did:
>> ‘[Champerty] is an offense against public justice, as it keeps alive strife and contention, and perverts the remedial process of the law into an engine of oppression.’
You could substitute ‘rape culture industry’ for ‘champerty’ and the statement would be equally true.
Also, SE has a fondness for flaunting his supposed legal chops while refusing to tell anyone here if he in fact passed the bar exam or if he merely took it.
4/17/2015 12:38 pm
I see that IO has made recourse to the disfavored doctrine of I’m Rubber v. Rape Culture Industry Is Glue (Miss. 1977).
Such arguments are no longer viable in light of the more recent authority set forth in So’s Your Mother v. No She Ain’t (4th Cir. 2009), and Neener Neener v. Bite Me (7th Cir. 2011) (Easterbrook, J.), and Is Not v. Is Too (11th Cir. 2012), aff’d sub nom. Is Not v. Is Too Infinity (U.S. 2013).
See generally I Have to Meet with a Client in 23 Minutes v. I Need to Defend My Legal Skills to a Stranger Even though I Was First in My Class (E.D.N.Y. 2014), cause dismissed in light of Your Mom Said So, April 17, 2015.
4/17/2015 12:39 pm
I forgot to say inter alia.
So:
Inter alia.
4/17/2015 2:04 pm
Richard!
Fix the typos in your preceding blog post. No more excuses!
4/17/2015 4:04 pm
See,
The whole point of campus kangaroo courts is to make those false allegations have no downside.
If fake rape claims are so rare, no problem punishing them.
.
SE needs a fake rape claim-i sure hope so.
4/17/2015 6:35 pm
SE likes to try and impress people by using Latin expressions too, so surely he knows what ‘non sequitur’ means.
Being first in your class is not in any way indicative of whether you passed the bar exam. For example, Hillary Clinton the failed presidential candidate who we are told was a star at Wellesley and who we are constantly told is the smartest woman in the world failed the DC bar exam by her own admission.
In any case where is the proof that you were first in your class?
4/17/2015 7:23 pm
Ipse dixi.
4/17/2015 7:54 pm
Interested Observer - I really could not have foreseen my reply to you taking this turn. Sorry about that.
Ebohlman - thanks for the speech. I’m so glad that people are talking about this.
4/18/2015 7:26 am
Mary —
No need to apologize. And for what it’s worth, I’ve enjoyed reading your postings and agree with nearly all of what you say.
Our whole legal system is intentionally designed with an extra burden of proof on the government so that a guilty party walks away free rather than have an innocent party convicted (not that it always works out that way)… so that we can have a society, in SE’s words. And that is what makes his position so absurd… he claims to have great reverence for the law and to have graduated first in his class at an Ivy League law school, and yet he proposes a sham extra-judicial proceeding whenever he doesn’t get the outcome he likes — a victory for anyone alleging to have been raped. How does that make for a better society? It does makes you wonder if he thinks all of the blacks who ended up on the wrong end of a noose because of the very same kind of kangaroo court got what they deserved…
4/18/2015 8:11 am
Not Ivy League.
You seem to have no respect for the responsibility that educators take on when they undertake to maintain a residential community. There are procedures, there is neutrality and respect; it is not a mob. If you think there is no such thing as professionalism then what hope can you have for any well-functioning institution of any kind?
You are quite right about the ‘extra’ burden of proof in the criminal system. It is there in large part because the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence — in the old days a lot of the punishments were capital ones, and in any event imprisonment is also violent, a deprivation of fundamental freedom. Being expelled from school, although certainly a bad thing to go through, bears no resemblance to those things.
The fact that you think a mob lynching is analogous to a hearing after extensive professional fact-finding suggests something deeply wrong with your awareness of the fact that civilization requires institutions, and those institutions have to make (accountable, procedurally sound) decisions. Not every decision that you lack appetite for is an historical enormity.
It’s probably too late for you to attempt to grow up, but you live in a cartoon world. There are cops and robbers, and no other game in town, no other modes of order or community. Of course it’s legitimate to love Ayn Rand when you’re a fifteen-year-old boy, but it should have been a task of your further education to move on from that phase.
I studied law initially under Bob Iuliano, Harvard’s general counsel. He had a very clear understanding that there is law and there is education. They interact but they do not define each other. There are other things too. This is basic, basic awareness of the world that 23-year-olds should have. But people like you, a notch above Sarah Palin, so proud of their sophistication, heap scorn on anyone with a job different from yours, which you cannot compute. Dean Eramo is a good example of someone who works hard and does well, professionally, who for you is a goblin or something. A lyncher, a Nazi, you name it. It’s because you live in a world of cardboard cutouts, where generalization/extrapolation/ scorn are the only conceptual moves available at the beginning of any given sentence.
If you consider this harsh and contemptuous, look again at your last post. You are literally accusing all university officers, all faculty who believe there are kinds of decision-making besides those dictated by the legal system, of operating as mobs who hang people out of spite and hatred. This is a deep, deep failure of imagination.
Try harder.
4/18/2015 8:31 am
The following is an important announcement…
Police warn all clubbers, partygoers, and unsuspecting bar regulars to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. A new date rape drug on the market called “beer” is used by many females to target unsuspecting men.
The drug is generally found in liquid form and is now available almost anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, from taps and in large “kegs.”
“Beer” is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and have sex with them. Typically, a woman needs only to persuade a guy to consume a few units of “beer” and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach.
After several “beers” men will often succumb to desires to perform sexual acts on horrific looking women to whom they would never normally be attracted. After drinking “beer,” men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that something bad occurred.
At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life’s savings in a familiar scam known as “a relationship.” It has been reported that in extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as “marriage.”
Apparently, men are much more susceptible to this scam after “beer” is administered and sex is offered by the predatory female.
Please! Forward this warning to every male you know. However, if you fall victim to this insidious “beer” and the predatory women administering it, there are male support groups with venues in every town where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter in an open and frank manner with similarly affected, like-minded guys.
For the support group nearest you, just look up “Golf Courses” in the yellow pages.
4/18/2015 8:31 am
If men treated regret like women
4/18/2015 8:34 am
Men just call it “beer goggles” and dont make up the worst possible violent fantasy to describe an unwanted encounter after the fact.
Time for women to “WOMEN UP” if they want to be part of adult society
4/18/2015 9:09 am
You would have been better served taking an introductory class in logic instead of majoring in sophistry.
Much of what you say might make sense if it weren’t for the fact that so many college administrators and educators have publicly lined up on the side of considering anyone who alleges they were a victim of sexual assault to be actually be one. That is hard to reconcile with “a hearing after extensive professional fact-finding” unless of course you mean a hear with extensive professional fact-finding designed to find guilt where none exists and designed to support the officials’ personal bias.
>> You seem to have no respect for the responsibility that educators take on when they undertake to maintain a residential community. There are procedures, there is neutrality and respect; it is not a mob.
How can there be neutrality and respect and it not be a mob when they they have no respect for basic law and order — they have already pledged allegiance to a particular side of an issue irrespective of the facts in any particular case? Is that not at least a part of what led to the mob lynching of blacks? Have you ever looked up professionalism in the dictionary? None of them that I have checked (Oxford, Webster) seem to indicate that a rigid adherence to a particular belief in the face of all available facts qualifies.
And please… I do have tremendous respect for those educators who do have a sense of fairness and justice and who aren’t social justice warriors by default.
>> Ipse dixi (sic)
Isn’t that the Bernie Madoff argument?… I’m claiming to make 12-15% annual returns, so you will just have to take my word for it; or, I say I graduated first in my law class and passed the bar, so you will just have to take my word for it; or, i claim I was raped by the resident campus conservative, so you will have to take my word for it; and on, and on, and on. By the way, isn’t ‘conservative’ a word requiring a trigger warning, especially in an educational setting? Doesn’t Lena Dunham know that? Or is that another case of separate rules for those who deem themselves to be the arbiter of all things progressive and everyone else?
By the way, nice job of casually disparaging all those other people you mention. I’d give you an ‘A’ for ad hominem attacks.
4/18/2015 10:20 am
“so many college administrators and educators have publicly lined up on the side of considering anyone who alleges they were a victim of sexual assault to be actually be one”
Those people don’t exist. You made them up.
Counselors who put on credulity for professional reasons in a 1on1 setting have no link with disciplinary officers.
Also, dixi is the first person perfect.
4/18/2015 10:24 am
Journalism - Scrutiny = Fiction
Fiction + biases = uninformed polemics
Uninformed polemics + policy change = lynch mob
4/18/2015 10:45 am
SE usefully reminds us that a low-talent, unlikeable person not cut out for success in a free market isn’t necessarily harmless. SE isn’t here to troll, he is a bureaucrat in training.
For him, these skirmishes in the comments section serve as sparring rounds for future battles in what he hopes will be a long and gainful career as a tinpot dictator in his own little fiefdom — in one of the countless government offices bullying ordinary people or perhaps as an “equal opportunity / diversity” enforcer in an HR department of some big corporation. (‘course, a position high in a university administration where he gets to sit on a kangaroo court in judgment of hapless undergrads accused of rape would be his total dream job!)
This is why turning one’s back on politics is not the solution. That only leaves the playing field wide open to the likes of SE.
4/18/2015 11:22 am
>> Those people don’t exist. You made them up.
No I didn’t… they are easy enough to find if you are honest enough to open your eyes. You should follow your own advice and try that Google thingie.
>> Counselors who put on credulity for professional reasons in a 1on1 setting have no link with disciplinary officers.
Perfect example of a non sequitur both as logic and as a literary device for multiple reasons, not the least of which it’s patently false.
You admit to being sloppy one year out from taking the bar exam and which you refuse to provide an answer to as to whether you passed it, and you have been caught in more than one instance of deliberately being deceptive on this blog, so why should we believe that you passed? Surely you are familiary with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus? Granted, this is not a court proceeding, but…
4/18/2015 1:07 pm
You numbskull, I only said I was sloppy in addressing the particular question about Sulkowicz. Here is the paragraph you keep citing:
“Dave, You are absolutely right. I should have double-checked this. I am eighteen months removed from the bar exam and I was not methodical enough. Nungesser would only have to prove that Sulkowicz was “negligent” in claiming he had raped her, such that a “reasonable person” could not have thought he had done so.”
Basic reading comprehension: I was ‘not methodical enough’ IN WRITING A BLOG COMMENT. I was plenty methodical enough to pass the bar and now I practice law. Settle down.
Also, cite me one university administrator who has suggested that rape accusers should get the benefit of the doubt in the actual adjudication of a disciplinary charge. Activists might say that; professionals don’t.
My God. So tedious
4/18/2015 3:00 pm
>> I was plenty methodical enough to pass the bar and now I practice law.
But you told us you were a ‘non-attorney’ (to use your formulation). How do you reconcile practicing law without being an attorney? And if you meant that you weren’t speaking as an attorney, wouldn’t it have been more honest to just say that?
I’m not going to do your research for you, you lazy sod.
4/18/2015 3:41 pm
IntObs, if I remember right (can’t be bothered to look for it), SE said something convoluted like that he was “not a non-attorney”.
If I may make a suggestion, further engagement with SE is probably not going to be productive for you. We already know enough about SE to form an opinion of his character, enough to conclude that from the viewpoint of people who just want to be let alone to live their lives with minimal interference, he is a menace to society.
Experiences like this are useful to sharpen’s one’s early-warning systems. Friendliness and willingness to compromise will get you nowhere with the likes of SE. They are out to win at all costs. Your pain is their gain. When you encounter them in real life, steer way clear of them if possible… and if not, counterattack with all your might and, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, “punch back twice as hard”.
This is just one blog in the wide world of the Internet. Richard has said that he values SE’s presence here, so your chances of driving SE away are nil. Gotta respect the proprietor. Future visitors to this blog may get their minds poisoned by SE, but it’s not for you or me to prevent that.
4/18/2015 3:54 pm
I can’t speak to “benefit of the doubt”, but it seems the panels hearing these cases are often volunteers, as in the case of the expelled student currently suing Duke.
Whereas the beauty of a jury system is the relative randomness of those called to serve, volunteers are motivated, self-selected. Obviously, there is no voir dire screening. And any bias will have an exaggerated effect in a 50.0001% setting.
Given the protests and bricks through the windows at UVa in support of Jackie and the apparent restrained response of those supporting the fraternities, it seems those motivated by a belief in “rape culture” will find it easier to make their way onto the panels.
4/18/2015 5:20 pm
Agreed. Volunteers deciding these things is a bad idea.
4/18/2015 7:56 pm
“Also, cite me one university administrator who has suggested that rape accusers should get the benefit of the doubt in the actual adjudication of a disciplinary charge.”
campusreform.org: Dartmouth College administrator Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?
Title is a real quote. Amanda Chlldress is the head of the college center for preventing sexual assault. She also said, “It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students.”
.
4/18/2015 8:35 pm
Anon, That is a pretty good example. I went looking for more context but these quotes were from a panel discussion. Not clear what kind of allegation she’s talking about; if she just means to say that a he-said she-said can sometimes be adjudicated in favor of her, I’m all for it. If she means (which I doubt) that no investigation is needed, then of course she’s a nut and needs to be kept far away from the disciplinary arm of the school.
4/18/2015 8:35 pm
And I disagree with her that putative “safety” comes before fairness.
4/19/2015 9:20 am
I-Roller —
My screw-up: I forgot that screwy formulation and got confused. Thanks for correcting me.
I agree with your assessment about Richard not chasing him off, although I don’t have a problem with that, quite apart from agreeing that he who has the gold makes the rules. I respect Richard for being a free speech absolutest, even if I don’t think he should be favoring an obvious troll over serious commentators.
I’m not trying to drive him off. Engaging SE does have one benefit… he goes from making categorical statements that are totally without any sort of qualification to slowly ceding points, thereby slowly backing himself into an ever shrinking circle.
As but one example, he flatly denied that there were any administrators like the above-mentioned Amanda Chlldress and challenged me to find one. Now he says with some equivocation that she should be kept far away from the disciplinary arm of the school. He also denied that there was any link between rape advocates and adjudicators. There is a formal link in that they work for the same organizations, and presumably the people who hire and appoint the Amanda Childresses of the world know what they are getting ahead of time, making it a reasonable assumption that they are in favor of and share her views… if they don’t know what they are getting, it reflects poorly on their competence.
4/19/2015 9:28 am
I gave you the example, forgot to write my name.
“If she just means to say that a he-said she-said can sometimes be adjudicated in favor of her, I’m all for it.”
So let me get this straight. In a he-said, she-said, which tends to be shorthand for an absence of other evidence, you’re all for adjudicating in favor of the alleged victim? What legal loophole is there to override a presumption of innocence? I’m betting there is none, since it’s such a central principle of your legal system.
“And I disagree with her that putative “safety” comes before fairness.”
That would be very heartening coming from you, were you not in willful denial of her argument. She is pulling the mind-boggling “statistically guilty” argument. Why could we not expel a student simply based on an allegation, since they are overwhelmingly likely to be “statistically” guilty? That’s her argument. Conviction or expulsion justified by “statistical guilt” is an actual, real belief in these circles. How does she get past that pesky issue of violating civil rights? She brushes it aside through the convoluted logic that higher education is not a right. Yes, this twisted argument is from a campus administrator in charge of handling sexual assault claims. It really is that bad. Note also her misuse of statistics:
“Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” Childress asked at the panel, before noting that while 2 to 8 percent of accusations are unfounded (but not necessarily intentionally false), 90 to 95 percent are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional…And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right.”
insidehighered.com Classrooms, courts, or neither?
4/19/2015 11:34 am
She’s not in charge of adjudicating charges. She runs the center for assault prevention. Totally different function.
Statistical guilt is an abomination and I denounce it. Seriously.
I don’t think Childress made a full-blown “argument,” but in any case what we have is snippets. I agree that out of context they are troubling — but again, she’s a campus advocate and counselor who runs prevention programs, not a dean who adjudicates charges.
4/19/2015 11:36 am
By the way, what IO calls ‘concessions’ is usually me restating what I said in the first place, patiently, because he has misread it and converted it to a straw man.
4/19/2015 11:49 am
>> I don’t think Childress made a full-blown “argument,” but in any case what we have is snippets. I agree that out of context they are troubling — but again, she’s a campus advocate and counselor who runs prevention programs, not a dean who adjudicates charges.
It is unbelievable to suggest that she has no influence over adjudication as is the implication here. She is part of an organization that is directly concerned with sexual assault accusations and outcomes, and while she may have no formal authority over the adjudication process, any casual student of organizational behavior will tell you that doesn’t necessarily mean that she doesn’t wield power behind the scenes.
To suggest that prevention and adjudication are totally divorced yet within the same umbrella organization is delusional.
An example of one of my straw men would be these non-existent administrators (in the eyes of SE) like Amanda Childress, no doubt.
4/19/2015 11:53 am
Mary —
Here you have a perfect example of SE’s modus operandi… to suggest without offering any proof that you are taking something out of context. Make him prove it.
It’s frightening to think that someone who is an officer of the court both believes in doing end runs around constitutional protections of due process and is so intellectually dishonest.
4/19/2015 12:28 pm
“any casual student of organizational behavior will tell you that doesn’t necessarily mean that she doesn’t wield power behind the scenes”.
It’s possible but it was zero percent true in my experience in an actual college administration. The prevention professional had no influence on adjudication.
4/19/2015 4:13 pm
SE, Childress’ train of thought is very clear, and there is no indication that the context of her entire speech would alter her message (one that I’m relieved you agree is troubling and an abomination). In fact, her speech caused so much consternation that Dartmouth released a statement standing by her, where their defense did not claim she was misrepresented or quoted out of context.
In the webpage for the Sexual Assault Awareness Program that Childress works for, one of the three key objectives is to “address issues of policy and procedure through advocacy for survivor concerns.” Further on, it is repeated that SAAP “works in collaboration with other departments and organizations to improve the College’s policies and procedures around issues of sexual violence.” This explicitly states that they have clout over the policy that guides and shapes the adjudication process and that they do not work independently, but in tandem with relevant campus groups.
They also participate in the adjudication process as survivor advocates. “SAAP staff can help students navigate the College judicial process and serve as an advisor in this process.” Childress’ bio states she “developed and revised college protocols and policies”.
Let me repeat: Dartmouth formally grants SAAP (therefore Childress) direct influence over college policy and procedure over rape/sexual assault, directly affects the rules and regulations over adjudication, and formally permits close involvement with the actual judicial process.
Is SAAP an outlier, or is the program a decent representation of what is going on in academe? Given that universities are pouring large amounts of their administrative budget into such programs, under mandates from the government no less, there seems to be a strong case for the latter.
4/19/2015 4:37 pm
>> It’s possible but it was zero percent true in my experience in an actual college administration. The prevention professional had no influence on adjudication.
Logic 101: Just because you didn’t witness it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
4/19/2015 5:17 pm
SE
4/19/2015 11:36 am
By the way, what IO calls ‘concessions’ is usually me restating what I said in the first place, patiently, because he has misread it and converted it to a straw man.
I find it interesting SE criticizes others for “misreading” and creating “strawmen”. This is someone who claimed people against kangaroo courts and rape culture hysteria really believe “[rape] prevention is too much of a hassle and that men shouldn’t be bothered“.
Such excellent logic in dissecting other’s criticisms while such poor logic developing his own suggests to me his own lunatic strawmen were built quite knowingly.
4/19/2015 7:35 pm
Mary,
Please direct me to the Dartmouth statement. You have presented some legitimately vexing facts.
Marshal, the comments I was responding to make my comment perfectly sensible in context. Also, bite me.
4/19/2015 7:45 pm
Marshal, the comments I was responding to make my comment perfectly sensible in context
Sure, so long as we understand that context to be “proof why SE cannot participate in a rational discussion”.
4/20/2015 8:21 am
Mary —
If you do provide what SE asks for, he will come up with some pathetic and idiotic reason as to why the Dartmouth statement does not say what it does say. The only benefit you will get by providing it is that he won’t be able to say that you made it up.
(Besides, is he really that inept that he can’t find it himself? He once asked me if I knew about that ‘Google thingie’… he obviously knows about it but doesn’t know how to use it.)
His response will be kind of like Chief Justice’s Roberts saying that the financial penalty for not buying coverage under the Unaffordable Care Act is a tax and not a penalty, even though the legislation specifically calls it a penalty and not a tax; or President Obama justifying the breaking of his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class when he did so by raising tobacco taxes under the guise of him not considering it to be a tax if it ‘is good for you'; or President Clinton’s infamous “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
You have, in roughly a half dozen posts on this thread alone, irrefutably shown him to be wrong and/or a bald-faced liar, and to have no grasp of grade school level logic among other things, and you have done it with grace and respect. Contrast that to the hundreds of posts from SE on various threads, and ignoring his being wrong on the facts, among other things, he goes after people he disagrees with in a vile, vicious manner, and particularly so after they have announced that they are leaving the thread (Cathy Young being an example).
I understand the need for continual engagement with his kind, because to not engage cedes to them the ability to propagate their evil unchecked, but it sure is tiresome to have to do so, especially given the seeming lack of progress in convincing them.
But the dirty little secret is that they don’t want to be convinced of the truth. The interesting question in all of this is what makes SE (or any of them) need to behave like such an evil imbecile.
4/20/2015 8:24 am
The last word should obviously have been ‘manner’… have at me, SE.
4/20/2015 8:57 am
All right, I tracked down the statement and it is pretty lame indeed.
“Dartmouth says that Childress, who plays no role in the judiciary process, was speaking rhetorically and that the question did not represent a personal belief.
” ‘[S]he was not suggesting policy, but was asking a question—a provocative one—meant to generate dialogue around complex issues for which answers are necessary to continue to strengthen and promote fair and equitable processes at all colleges and universities,’ Dartmouth College spokesman Justin Anderson told Campus Reform in an emailed statement.
“Anderson said that the college ‘is committed to a fair, objective disciplinary process that respects the rights of both the reporting student and the accused,’ and has no intention of altering its policies.”
University spokespeople are just pathetic. And/but it does seem to me that Childress has a responsibility to clarify this situation. If the question — “why not expel someone based on an allegation?” — is meant to be thought-provoking only, she needs to do better at saying so. (If she means by “allegation” an entire, coherent, account of events corroborated in all possible respects by other facts and not counterpoised by something credible despite all possible procedures to hear from the other side, then as I’ve said I agree with her. Physical evidence or eyewitnesses to a rape are not required.)
Childress is an advocate for accusers, and does not make any decisions in particular cases. But from what Google reveals I agree that — even if she was responding in a context to something we’re not aware of — her comments are irresponsible and shallow, and that she may be unprepared for her job as a campus officer who represents the college.
Also, this guy Anderson is pretty lame.
4/20/2015 9:08 am
What would you expect them to say? If she truly has no role, they should separate Childress and her cohorts form the formal reporting chain of command where they are indeed part of the same organization that adjudicates. I refer you to Roberts, Obama, Clinton, et al…
4/20/2015 9:47 am
No one with biased views may be “part of the same organization that adjudicates.”
That’s just silly. A lot of people are part of the organization without speaking for it.
But she spoke poorly in this case, and if she thinks statistics have any place in the adjudication or adjudication-policy conversations, she is an embarrassment.
4/20/2015 10:37 am
Perhaps this whole issue would be better served by clarifying what we mean by ‘false accusations,’ because a clearer definition would eliminate a lot of wiggle room for those who aren’t serious about the issue:
1) A woman has been assaulted, with the woman having made no claims as to the identity of her assailant (perhaps she was unable to), but the police have the wrong guy… no real comment needed other than to point out that it is unfair to blame the woman for the guy’s unearned troubles.
2) A woman has been assaulted, and she mistakenly but in good faith identifies the wrong individual… same as above.
3) All other cases where the woman is deliberately falsely claiming either to have been raped or deliberately naming someone as the culprit who she knows wasn’t… there have to be some consequences for the woman. Some people say that this is a small number, but that is beside the point; additionally, others would excuse these women as being disturbed, but that is immaterial — they deliberately caused great harm and therefore should be disciplined… or committed to a psychiatric institution.
So it follows that situation 3 is what we are really most concerned about. 1 and 2 are of concern only to the extent that, A) the women should have no bogus impediments put in the way of their receiving justice, and B) the falsely accused should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and not have the system stacked against them. (Obviously these are goals with naturally inherent conflicts, meaning the system is imperfect. It’s facile to say this, but our justice system is like capitalism… it’s a terrible system but it’s the best one that there is.) We need to be focused on fixing situation 3 precisely so that people of mal-intent don’t use the existence of it as an excuse to deny those in situations 1 and 2 justice.
Beyond that, I think that a vast majority of the population would agree on many things like physical evidence and eyewitnesses not always being necessary (although again, some people deliberately use these kinds of issues for other than honest purposes):
A woman claiming to have been raped and who provides a reasonable description of where it happened (some of the furnishings of the alleged attacker’s basement, for example) and where there is reasonable evidence or even reason to believe that she has never been before would certainly qualify as a case where physical evidence (DNA, fingerprints, etc) would be almost superfluous, leaving the outcome to other factors — the case might be legitimately be decided either way, which is not to say that the right verdict was reached.
Everything comes down to ‘reasonable doubt’, which is the very definition of an ambiguous standard, and it presumably creates much of the controversy around this and so many other contentious issues… but what is the alternative?
Even if we could change the system relatively easily, which we can’t, how could we do so and still provide adequate protections to those who are falsely accused? If the woman was indeed assaulted and we convict the wrong guy, the woman has not received justice — only the illusion of it.
Finally, in the same way that if you want less of something you tax it and if you want more of something you reduce taxes on it, the very fact that we create a body dealing with a particular problem separate and apart from the normal system guarantees that that particular problem becomes harder to solve, because there will be a whole body of people who have a vested interest in continuing and expanding the problem. As an example, it’s well known that the tax code is convoluted and inefficient, but tax accountants, as much as they complain about it, will fight to the death to keep it as complicated as possible in order to protect their income.
People on either side of the issue who without any evidence continually impute bad motives to those they disagree with are as much a part of the problem as those who refuse to recognize the problem…
4/20/2015 10:59 am
You are ignoring the hardest issue. Usually intercourse or sexual contact between the two people in question is undisputed. The challenge is solely in determining whether there was consent or not.
4/20/2015 11:16 am
>> No one with biased views may be “part of the same organization that adjudicates.”
Where is the proof for that? If the majority of an organization subscribes to a view that is not held by the population at large, that is by definition a biased view. Given that most of higher ed administration seems to think that there is a college rape culture whereas the general population seemingly doesn’t, anyone higher ed administration appoints to adjudicate is automatically suspect.
>> That’s just silly. A lot of people are part of the organization without speaking for it.
Now that is just plain silly. Of course that is true in a very narrow sense, but it doesn’t mean it’s true in all cases or even most, and neatly elides the whole issue of informal influence. A lot of professors with very good reputations from those same institutions that you hold in such great esteem have made their bones in part on demonstrating that the formal, documented power structure is often anything but the real power structure, and that they react to things from outside the stated power structure. As such, Childress might be making these comments precisely for the message they send. If you consider the number of advocates and social justice warriors involved, it makes perfect sense for her to say what she said. By definition, advocates on any issue are more vocal than the general population, and so she has just exercised power by motivating them, which in turn will have an influence on the defined authority. If you have any doubt about any of this you might want to look at such things as institutions divesting themselves from various countries or industries, where those advocating such actions have no formal or direct influence.
>> But she spoke poorly in this case, and if she thinks statistics have any place in the adjudication or adjudication-policy conversations, she is an embarrassment.
How do you know exactly what her motives were or weren’t? How do you know that she didn’t mean exactly what she said? A large part of your whole shtick is pontificating on why what someone said isn’t really what they said or meant to say, without any proof as to why you are right. And even if we accept what you say as true, isn’t it shocking that Childress, like so many of her cohorts, who by the way all have at least one graduate degree (or they would never hold the positions they hold) and so are very highly educated by any measure say such outrageously stupid things, and on a continual basis? Isn’t that prima facie evidence that they are unfit to hold the positions that they hold?
4/20/2015 11:23 am
” **most of** higher ed administration seems to think that there is a college rape culture.”
This is still false, the single Childress example notwithstanding.
4/20/2015 11:37 am
>>You are ignoring the hardest issue. Usually intercourse or sexual contact between the two people in question is undisputed. The challenge is solely in determining whether there was consent or not.
Granted.
But why is it that we are expected to take as a matter of faith that some woman who says she didn’t give consent is telling the truth over some guy who said she did give consent? Even more, if the woman is impaired, she can’t give consent, but even if the guy is even more impaired, he is expected to be in enough control of his facilities to know what she really means.
You have a particularly nasty habit of picking edge cases to justify your point of view. No one of any honesty and who doesn’t have a Stone Age or Sharia Law mentality disputes that if a woman clearly says no, even once (as long as she doesn’t give other conflicting signals), means ‘no,’ and anything beyond that is a violation.
Everything outside of that particular scenario is less clear cut, and to take the guy’s side in any particular case doesn’t mean we are misogynist in any way, shape or form.
So, as a thought experiment, let us assume that the same numbers for false rape accusations are at work here, which is that 2-8% of all rape claims involve situations where the women clearly said ‘no.’ You don’t seem to have any sympathy for those guys in the former situation… why should you expect people to have any sympathy for the women in the latter situation? After all, according to you and you kind, the numbers are so small…
Note that that isn’t really how I feel. I’m simply pointing out the flaws in your arguments.
4/20/2015 11:41 am
>> This is still false, the single Childress example notwithstanding.
Again, one of my straw women, no doubt.
But you have already been proven wrong in making similar claims, so the onus is on you to prove that I am wrong, not on me to prove that you are.
4/20/2015 12:01 pm
Correction:
In my thought experiment above, it should read 2-8% of women **said** they said ‘no.’
4/21/2015 8:36 am
” **most of** higher ed administration seems to think that there is a college rape culture.”
This is still false, the single Childress example notwithstanding.
Probably correct. No admin really believes there is a “college rape culture.”
What they know is there is a powerful political agenda being advanced and they either believe in it to an extent or are simply lazy or scared to oppose it, consequences be damned.
Take Renda for example. She’s been told a fraternity gang-raped a fellow student and she “believes” that student only in so far she can further her career with using the story. In actuality, however, she doesn’t believe her. Because she is standing idle while these supposed rapists roam around campus. The “believers” are totally unconcerned with justice or the protection of women by prosecuting rapists; they are only concerned with the power to expel male students. Hannah Graham and Morgan Harrington’s stories are examples of this.
4/21/2015 8:55 pm
“In actuality, however, she doesn’t believe her. Because she is standing idle while these supposed rapists roam around campus.”
Misogynist pig.
4/21/2015 9:40 pm
That last comment was not mine.
4/22/2015 2:43 am
Mary,
In the minds of man haters, men dont deserve rights.
SE feels superior to all other men because as a mangian, he is willing to lynch as many men as needed so he can feel superior
11/22/2015 8:31 am
If the sexual htirosy of a victim of an alleged rape is irrelevant, the jury of twelve good citizens and true will surely take no notice of such evidence. If the jury decide that the sexual htirosy of the victim is relevant, then it is, as they are the people charged with making the decision about the guilt or innocnce of the defendant. I think it is better that sexual htirosy evidence is allowed. It can be judged relevant or irrelevant by the jury as they see fit, just like any other evidence. To dictate what evidence or not is offered to a jury makes a mockery of the whole judicial system. If you don’t trust your peers on a jury to deal properly with evidence, what is the point of a jury at all? As for judges, the only ‘we’ that can throw such judges out is the people, the electorate, the same people from whom juries are chosen. But you don’t really trust them do you?