February 9, 2018

"Real life is beginning to mimic college tribunals. When the perpetrator of an anonymous list accusing dozens of men of a whole range of sexual misdeeds..."

"... is actually celebrated by much of mainstream media (see this fawning NYT profile), you realize that we are living in another age of the Scarlet Letter. Moira Donegan has yet to express misgivings about possibly smearing the innocent — because the cause is far more important than individual fairness. Besides, if they’re innocent, they’ll be fine! Ezra Klein has openly endorsed campus rules that could frame some innocent men. One of the tweets in response to some of my recent writing on this has stuck in my mind ever since: 'can anyone justify why the POSSIBLE innocence of men is so much more important than the DEFINITE safety and comfort of women?' And yet this principle of preferring ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty was not so long ago a definition of Western civilization.... The goal of our culture now is not the emancipation of the individual from the group, but the permanent definition of the individual by the group. We used to call this bigotry. Now we call it being woke. You see: We are all on campus now."

From "We All Live on Campus Now" by Andrew Sullivan at New York Magazine.

136 comments:

John Lynch said...

Liberals talk a lot about the Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scares, and the Hollywood Blacklist.

Never again, huh?

pdug said...

"preferring ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty was not so long ago a definition of Western civilization."

As Jonah Goldberg has explained in detail, this isn't a definition of western civ, its a cliche that stops you from thinking.

DKWalser said...

I'm beginning to remember why I used enjoy reading him.

Sebastian said...

Good for him. But pray tell: Who transvalued our values? Who decided the cause was more important than principle? Who doesn't give a damn about breaking eggs to create an omelette?

The desire for domination is the heart of progressivism. The tribunilization of life is just a tool.

I Callahan said...

History keeps repeating itself, and people act surprised. To me, the surprising part is that they're surprised.

Here's a thought to ponder: maybe reactions like the "woke" and "#metoo" movements are just humans being their natural human selves: dumb, panicky, dangerous and fickle. Maybe all of the gnashing and wailing about this by the minority of humans - the ones who can think - is pointless, because we'll always be in the minority, and as one wise sage once said about humans: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

I have a bit of a conundrum, myself; I believe the above with all of my heart, yet it still bugs the shit out of me...

rhhardin said...

M for misdeed.

Ann Althouse said...

"preferring ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty"

To be fair, this is a way that was found to express the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used to find someone guilty in a criminal case and Sullivan is talking about decisions that are not about criminal punishment but deciding whether to hire/fire/demote a person or expel them from school or socially shun them.

rhhardin said...

B for behavior is bad too, even worse than misdeed, if it's in a "talk about your behavior" context.

Bay Area Guy said...

Scratch a Leftist, find a totalitarian....

rhhardin said...

The minister being the perp was the point of the scarlet letter.

They needed hostile workplace laws.

Fernandistein said...

(repost frmo earlier this AM)

Steve Hsu has a Rogan/Pinker conversation briefly addressing these witch-hunts, "virtue signalling" and the phenom of denouncing others before you're denounced.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/02/steve-pinker-and-joe-rogan.html

Ann Althouse said...

The fact that the behavior is also a crime doesn't mean that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies with respect to other consequences of the behavior. Obviously, you can bring a civil suit in tort and get the "preponderance of the evidence" standard even where the alleged tort is also a crime. And if we're talking about something that isn't even in court, the question is whether you could be sued for taking action against the person, and that would be a civil case in which the person would have the burden of proof and the burden of proof would be "preponderance of the evidence" (not about whether he committed the act but whether his rights were violated).

buwaya said...

This is not whats going on here.
These are cultural dominance rituals.
Note that only a certain faction, or factions, gets to perform this dance, and that the people who truly do impose IRL sanctions as a consequence are not the shouters.
Consider the case of Matt Taylors girlie shirt (he was running the ESA Philae probe team). It was his ESA and University boss who took the twitter madness seriously.
And so with all other cases - the audience is always executive management wherever the purse strings are. Advertisers, some marketing executive, middle management at an internet company, etc.

MikeR said...

"When the perpetrator of an anonymous list accusing dozens of men of a whole range of sexual misdeeds is actually celebrated by much of mainstream media (see this fawning NYT profile), you realize that we are living in another age of the Scarlet Letter."
Ridiculous. It was supposed to be an anonymous list, and supposed to be unpublished. It had a _point_: It was a way for women to present their accusations without risk, so that in the end people could see which men were serial violators. That's a good idea.
They do the same thing for accusing child molesters in places like schools; each (former) child may be afraid to go public about a respected teacher, but if you see a dozen other former students, then you have grounds to investigate. I know of teachers who were caught this way, and before that were abusing kids for decades.
Cops do this, verbally, you know. They ask around, find out if a number of people think there's a problem with somebody. Then they follow up. The follow-up is critical.
Such a list is _not_ supposed to be proof of guilt, especially when people can post anonymously. This list should not have been publicized and whoever did it did wrong.

Ann Althouse said...

I support due process, but the due process required to expel a student from school (I'm assuming a public university) isn't the same as is required to convict him of a crime, even if the accusation is of behavior that could be prosecuted as a crime.

rhhardin said...

Going to court is often an expression of enough is enough, rather than a desire for money.

It doesn't matter what the court decides.

rhhardin said...

The defense ought to be that this stuff isn't a public problem and lay off.

We work it out ourselves.

mockturtle said...

Most women featured in your posts are victims or are reporting on victimhood. Sad. This generalization is probably more destructive than sexual objectivization itself.

Ficta said...

"And Trump plays a critical role. His crude, bigoted version of identity politics seems to require an equal and opposite reaction."

Oh, for heavens sake. Trump is the equal and opposite reaction to this nonsense.

Rick said...

The circle's moving so fast even Andrew Sullivan is making sense again. I'm curious though, how does Sarah Palin's uterus impact this analysis?

I'm remembering all the left wingers who protected the college radicals by claiming their antics were theater and thus critics were inappropriately focusing on unimportant issues. Certainly most of those left wingers were cluelessly repeating the left's approved talking points but surely some were smart enough to foresee the outcome and thus their efforts must be considered support. Will any of the the misled rethink their positions? Or will they transition from "that can never happen" to "it is perfectly appropriate" without once making the argument for the position? If they ratify these actions after the fact by refusing to separate from those who misled them should we credit any future efforts to distinguish themselves from the most extreme elements of the left?

Since this is roughly the fifth major issue this has occurred over in my life I'm thinking the answer to the last has already been determined.

rhhardin said...

Sexual objectivization is a myth.

Women precisely do not become objects, and that's what keeps them feminine, to a man.

No matter what he looks at, it doesn't explain his interest in them. They never become an object.

There is of course no reason for his interest in them. It's wired in but appears to him as if it's a logical conclusion. What he can't figure out is why.

Rob said...

The guiding principle of the firebrands seems to be that of Abbot Arnaud Amaury, who when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish Catholics from heretics said, "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. (Kill them. For the Lord knows who are His.)" In other words, "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

mockturtle said...

In today's climate the onus on every male is to prove that he is NOT a sexual predator.
Only eunuchs will be safe from scrutiny.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Destroying Western Civilization is the point, isn't it?

I Callahan said...
History keeps repeating itself, and people act surprised."

Perhaps that's because many of them have never learned history. My millennial nieces and nephews are bright enough, but I am shocked by how little they have been taught about the history of Communism.

Derek Kite said...

The solution is to accuse Ezra Klein of something that gets him driven from his job.

The people in positions of power and influence who are spouting this nonsense will demand fairness, forbearance and reasonableness only after a few of them hang from lamp posts.

Richard Fagin said...

Prof. Althouse, agreed, a due process standard for expulsion of a student is reasonably lower than to obtain a criminal conviction for the same offense. Assuming that an expulsion carries with it civil harm broader than the expulsion itself, is it not also reasonable to have a provably wrong expulsion subject to procedural advantage such as a presumption of liability for libel and perhaps statutory and/or enhanced damages?

EDH said...

And yet Andrew Sullivan, unfortunately true to his triangulated public personae, must dump the left's same will-o'-the-wisp hate on Trump, the one person who's had the guts to actually buck the trend Sullivan decries.

If not Trump, Andrew, who? Jesus?

And Trump plays a critical role. His crude, bigoted version of identity politics seems to require an equal and opposite reaction. And I completely understand this impulse. Living in this period is to experience a daily, even hourly, psychological hazing from the bigot-in-chief. And when this white straight man revels in his torment of those unlike him — and does so with utter impunity among his supporters — there’s a huge temptation to respond in kind. A president who has long treated women, in his words, “like shit,” and bragged about it, is enough to provoke rage in any decent person. But anger is rarely a good frame of mind to pursue the imperatives of reason, let alone to defend the norms of liberal democracy.

Michael K said...

It's. OK.. The sex robots are coming.

Pretty soon women can avoid men altogether. Won't that be ideal.?

And vice versa, of course.

Shouting Thomas said...

The Red Army’s Rape of Berlin is the outcome of this alliance between the fags and fag hags.

Our ladies asses are made of the finest china. How marvelously fragile and sensitive they are!

Their dreams of destroying the ability of their own men to defend them and giving themselves over to the catastrophic gangbang of an occupying army seem likely to come true.

This cycle has been repeated thousands of times.

Althouse and Sullivan are possessed by demons determined to bring a nightmare to reality.

Shouting Thomas said...

Forgetting why the fags were in the closet and we expected the fag hags to shut up and make themselves scarce is an integral part of this process.

rcocean said...

Sullivan is always so over-dramatic.

All that's happened is a lot of man-pigs, especially in Hollywood and Politics, are getting a taste of what everyone in Corporate America has put up with for years.

sean said...

Who is Trig's mother?

Lars Porsena said...

Who would have thought 20 years ago that the phrase 'college tribunal' would have
such a malevolent meaning?

exiledonmainstreet said...

EDH said...
And yet Andrew Sullivan, unfortunately true to his triangulated public personae, must dump the left's same will-o'-the-wisp hate on Trump, the one person who's had the guts to actually buck the trend Sullivan decries."

Well, of course. He can't just criticize the left without making sure New Yorker readers know he hates Trump and blames the Orange Demon for making the left behave in vile ways. It's like the story someone linked to in one of the café threads about the pussy hatted woman who was helped by a redneck when her car broke down. She made the momentous discovery that hey, these deplorables can be real nice people, and added that she hated Trump for making her hate the people who voted for him.

If you take the left to task or examine some of your own assumptions about rednecks, you better follow that up with a condemnation of Trump or you won't get published in the New Yorker again and your friends won't like you.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

EDH said...
And yet Andrew Sullivan, unfortunately true to his triangulated public personae


Is it now considered an impossibility to buy into arguments from both sides of the partisan divide? Must one retain perfect ideological purity or be dismissed as a gadfly (no offence intended gadfly).

Can one not think the president is a dumbass and still question the questionable handling of sexual behavior on campus?

Joshua Barker said...

rhhardin said...
Going to court is often an expression of enough is enough, rather than a desire for money.

It doesn't matter what the court decides.

2/9/18, 9:06 AM

----------------

Bullshit... If there's money to be had, you're naive if you think it isn't a factor... But even when it's not, there are a host of other possible selfish reasons, including revenge and power... Law-fare is a real thing, and the term "process as punishment" wasn't coined in a vacuum.

Luke Lea said...

I like the Trump bashing in the middle of Sullivan's piece. I guess that was for protection.

traditionalguy said...

The traditional Court of Law with adverse trial lawyers and access to a Jury results in justice, peace and collegial respect for one another.

Ergo, that system is Progressive Destroyers of the USA’s first target. Once it is gone, fascism
Reigns and the Tyrants Secret Police rules.

DKWalser said...

Speaking of Sullivan, but only as an illustration of what happens too often, he was perfectly willing to abandon conservative 'liberal' principles when it suited his purposes. In our society, change in fundamental institutions such as marriage are supposed to be instituted through democratic means. Sullivan was a strong advocate of using the courts, instead. Whether your agree with the public policy outcome or not (I do), it is still possible to see the method of achieving that outcome as illegitimate.

Now, having his person policy wishes fulfilled, Sullivan wants everyone to play by the rules his team refused to follow in achieving their objectives. Gee, do you think that they will listen to him now or follow his prior example?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Due process is a low standard. In an employment at will situation, you aren’t due any process.

glenn said...

Once again the flower kiddies have much to answer for.

DKWalser said...

... In an employment at will situation, you aren’t due any process....

That's not true. Even in 'employment at will' states, an employer cannot fire an employee for an unlawful reason. There are limitations on the employer's 'will'. How many restrictions and what they may be vary by the state.

Opinh Bombay said...

The fix is pretty straight forward. Just accuse the College President and staff of sexual predation and stick with it. Pretty soon, Due Process will become a good idea again.

buwaya said...

The effect of all this is mostly outside the law, or at least the courts. It is enforced by people who can deny employment or advancement, and these people are driven to doing this out of fear of others like them.

Its not that the activists or noisemakers are different or in some way worse in themselves, its that they feed directly into a powerful caste that enforces their whims.

The case in point is Brendan Eich of course. His board forced him out because they feared for their company, at the hands of others like themselves, not from the activists.

The latest absurd case is of Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari, founders of the entire videogame industry, their Otto Daimler. Granted he is retired, but this year the industry rescinded its award to him at the urging of pipsqueaks. Because, ultimately, each member of that board of industrial bigs feared each other.

Kate said...

For someone who sees clearly now Sullivan can certainly miss his own "Sarah's uterus" role in the whole trajectory. Until he looks back further than Trump I can't take him seriously.

Ann Althouse said...

“Assuming that an expulsion carries with it civil harm broader than the expulsion itself, is it not also reasonable to have a provably wrong expulsion subject to procedural advantage such as a presumption of liability for libel and perhaps statutory and/or enhanced damages?”

That’s pretty labyrinthine, which makes it sound like bad process, but I think I see the Rube Goldberg machine you’re building so I say no.

robother said...

ARM: "Can one not think the president is a dumbass and still question the questionable handling of sexual behavior on campus?"

But Sullivan is blaming Trump for the whole thing. In Sullivan's telling , it all just an equal and opposite reaction to Trump's "identity politics" of the right. As if Obama's Title IX decrees were issued in anticipation of Trump's "bigotry".

Sullivan is pathetic. In his way, he is just as much an enabler of the Marxist Left's identitarian march through US institutions as any SJW, because he fundamentally will never challenge it, always excusing it as a necessary (If sometimes excessive) reaction to the truly evil Palins and Trumps.

The Drill SGT said...

How long before:

1. ambitious anonymous men start posting to these lists posing as injured women outing the rivals of said anonymous ambitious men?

2. people like Weinstein hire internet monkey's to flood the lists with false accusations to discredit the lists

Sebastian said...

"Living in this period is to experience a daily, even hourly, psychological hazing from the bigot-in-chief. And when this white straight man revels in his torment of those unlike him"

Andrew, listen up: the tribunilization of life starts with that kind of insanity. If Trump "hazes" "hourly," if a president "revels" in "torment," of course we need "tribunals" to hold him and his ilk accountable. The MSM have played that role happily.

In the end, the Sullivans care more about sticking it to the deplorables and winning the culture war than preserving basic civil liberties and avoiding some collateral damage.

buwaya said...

The way to break this nasty cycle is if at some point a sufficiently powerful man is put in such a position, he fights, and so doing defeats or breaks some of his peers.
What Peter Thiel did to Gawker for instance.
Its his peers that count.

Jon Burack said...

I am not satisfied by this statement from Ann Althouse.

"I support due process, but the due process required to expel a student from school (I'm assuming a public university) isn't the same as is required to convict him of a crime, even if the accusation is of behavior that could be prosecuted as a crime."

I don't disagree with the statement itself, but I do not think it describes what is actually taking place on campuses - and now in the society at large over the entire #Metoo phenomenon. At the hearings some schools are holding, it is not simply a matter of a lack of "due process." Even in civil suits, to say nothing of ordinary informal ways of dealing with conflicting claims, there are basic standards of fairness that grant people a right to make their case and challenge their accusers with counter evidence. A "presumption of innocence" is a standard that, it seems to me, precedes "due process." It is embedded in a respect for the individual that I believe is what Sullivan means by Western civilization. It is the essence of Western civilization. It is this that is under attack here. Men as a class are prejudged in these hearings, and not individuals. And now, they are being prejudged in society at large by the #Metoo mindset. I think this assault on the individual goes way beyond technical issues about due process.

buwaya said...

This all was going on long before Trump.
See Brendan Eich and Matt Taylor and a thousand more.
Google was insane with it two or five years ago.
Sullivan is a slippery fellow, untrustworthy, opportunistic, without principles, a fraud.
Of course he included the Trump bit as a diversion.

Henry said...

At a certain point you have to give up on having a reputation.

Bay Area Guy said...

A gentle reminder: stay away from leftwing women. Smile politely, and move on. Don't interact, certainly don't date, avoid any sexual/romantic/flirtatious conduct -- even with the good looking ones. It'll come back to bite 1 or 2 or even 5 years down the road.

Gahrie said...

Assuming that an expulsion carries with it civil harm broader than the expulsion itself, is it not also reasonable to have a provably wrong expulsion subject to procedural advantage such as a presumption of liability for libel and perhaps statutory and/or enhanced damages?”

That’s pretty labyrinthine, which makes it sound like bad process, but I think I see the Rube Goldberg machine you’re building so I say no.


A woman must never be held responsible for, or be made to feel bad about, anything, ever.

Especially if it's only lying about the behavior of a splooge stooge and ruining his life.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
Sullivan is a slippery fellow, untrustworthy, opportunistic, without principles, a fraud.


As a former regular reader of Sullivan's, this is not an accurate portrayal. His principles come from another setting, British conservatism, and these do not align well with US conservatism. As a consequence, he may seem all over the map from the perspective of US conservatives. From other perspectives not so much. He is not a reliable ideological ally, but this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Gahrie said...

Of course, if 20% of women who are attending college are raped, then drastic measures are necessary.

Which is precisely why that absurd statistic exists, and Althouse refuses to admit that it is false.

EDH said...

Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Is it now considered an impossibility to buy into arguments from both sides of the partisan divide? Must one retain perfect ideological purity or be dismissed as a gadfly (no offence intended gadfly).

As stated in my next clause that you omitted, I simply found Sullivan's hackneyed attack on Trump less an attempt to inform and persuade the neutral reader than to ingratiate himself to the people he purports to criticize by repeating the same clap-trap he bemoans elsewhere.

SeanF said...

MikeR: Ridiculous. It was supposed to be an anonymous list, and supposed to be unpublished.

Define "supposed to be unpublished" for me, here. Wasn't it put out on Google Docs for pretty much anyone to view and modify right from the start?

Virgil Hilts said...

EDH said...
And yet Andrew Sullivan, unfortunately true to his triangulated public personae. . .
Agree 100%. Look, Trump is an asshole and a jerk. But I see little real evidence he is a bogot. AS' central point is correct, but he is also a big part of the problem when he says shit like "and because on the right, white identity politics has overwhelmed moderate conservatism."
Says who!? That is utter, complete leftist bullshit.

M Jordan said...

Hey, Andrew Sullivan, you helped create this world. Own it.

M Jordan said...

“Sullivan is a slippery fellow, untrustworthy, opportunistic, without principles, a fraud.”

Well put, buwaya. I almost despise him more when I agree with him than when I don’t,

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
EDH said...
And yet Andrew Sullivan, unfortunately true to his triangulated public personae

Is it now considered an impossibility to buy into arguments from both sides of the partisan divide?

It appears Sullivan is done trying to find out who Trig's real mother is.

So Sullivan decries the mob.

Then he goes on a rant against the only person in this country who is successfully standing up against the mob...

to protect himself from the mob?

One example: Trump was for gay marriage 40 years ago. Before anyone in the democrat party. The left, Sullivan et. al. still insist Trump is bigoted against Gay people.

You are all a joke.

DKWalser said...

...His principles come from another setting, British conservatism, and these do not align well with US conservatism. As a consequence, he may seem all over the map from the perspective of US conservatives. From other perspectives not so much. He is not a reliable ideological ally, but this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Understood. Christopher Hicks was seldom my reliable ideological ally, but he was always a good, thought provoking, read. Sometimes infuriating and irreverent, but almost always worthwhile (assuming I found the subject matter of interest). What I objected to in Sullivan was what appeared to be his willingness to abandon reason and truth in pursuit of his aims. Or, did he let what he viewed as a betrayal by Bush blind him to truth and reason? Whatever the case, I quit reading him when what he wrote one week was consistently contradicted by what he'd written the prior with no attempt to reconcile his positions. And, other than temporary insanity, I've no explanation other than spite and mendacity for his obsessive claims about the true parentage of Trig Palin.

It's a shame. Sullivan used to be, like Hicks, a very worthwhile read.

Steve said...

A college and its young customers are not really dealing at arms-length with each other. The college possesses all personal information about the students, represents itself as transforming the student's capacities as a springboard to a good life, and often houses and feeds them. Maybe not in the place of parents, but pretty close. Isn't there something like a fiduciary duty owed to the students, so if there is a breach of campus rules the college has a high burden to prove that breach, or a high burden to create a fair and balanced forum for the disputing students?

buwaya said...

I'm not a US conservative either ARM.
And Sullivan is not a British style conservative .
He is very talented at rationalizing his positions, whatever they happen to be, by drawing a conveniently Gerrymandered Congressional district among his ostensible principles.

James K said...

"preferring ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty"

Yes, it's a cliche, but it's shorthand for the motivation behind due process. The problem is that the left believes in collective guilt, so they would reject the whole distinction between innocence and guilt.

MadisonMan said...

Colleges routinely prohibit students from trying something that might cause harm or have them fail. I mean, the Gym here closes if it gets hot out -- as if people can't decide for themselves what limits to place on their own bodies. This overarching them of We, your superiors, will take care of you does not prepare them for the real world -- but it does indoctrinate them into the belief that they should be taken care of, and after College, that role is presumed to be the Government.

If College Students do something illegal, they should be prosecuted. If they simply do something bad, or foolish, or boorish, they should be allowed to learn from that behavior. The people on the receiving end of the bad/foolish/boorish behavior are also learning, of course -- and the College has a burden to help them understand and process what has happened, but IMO too often Colleges simply try to prevent all bad/foolish/boorish behavior, and that means people learn nothing.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Woke, White Privilege, Microaggressions...

F You

You do you, leave me the F alone.

CJinPA said...

Interesting:
Many media organizations now have various private, invitation-only Slack groups among their staffers — and they are often self-segregated into various gender and racial categories along classic campus “safe space” lines. No men are allowed in women’s slack; no non-p.o.c.s in the people-of-color slack; and so on. And, of course, there are no such venues for men

This is what "Social Justice" means:

Ed Yong, a science writer, keeps “a personal list of women and people of color who work in the beats that I usually cover,” so he can make sure that he advances diversity even in his quotes.

It means it's not enough to not be sexist, you have to be an active part of The Movement. This will soon be mandatory for all journalists.

Most people, not even "conservatives," appreciate how the game has changed. The days of complaining about "liberal professors" now seem quaint.

buwaya said...

"Colleges routinely prohibit students from trying something that might cause harm or have them fail."

This is one of those American customs that should not be.
Universities should be in the business of organizing lectures and handing out degrees.
Like European universities, or nearly all the rest of the world.
In every other aspect of life the student should be assumed to be an adult, over whom the university has no responsibility.

hombre said...

The mediaswine took their sexual harassment shot at Trump and failed for insufficient evidence. The plan now is to lower the bar so that any slur whispered by any bimbo is taken as gospel. They'll get him yet!

buwaya said...

And as for attending classes/lectures -
The ancient tradition was for degrees to be based on examinations and papers and verbal defenses only.
Attending class should be optional. Interested students should spend their time arguing with each other outside.

The kindergarten-level supervision of American students, strapping seven-footers and women who would in another age have already been matrons, is absurd, ridiculous.
One looks at a university classroom and sees a professor taking attendance?

bagoh20 said...

Remember Spartacus. It may be time for all us men to stand up and proclaim "I am a rapist". While we're at it, I'm a racist, a redneck and an idiot. Now can we move on?

Lars Porsena said...

@ARM:

".. British conservatism, and these do not align well with US conservatism. As a consequence, he may seem all over the map from the perspective of US conservatives.."


Oh, really? How so? How do they differ from left/democrats?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

See, he was making sense, and then we stumble into this pantload:

Living in this period is to experience a daily, even hourly, psychological hazing from the bigot-in-chief. And when this white straight man revels in his torment of those unlike him — and does so with utter impunity among his supporters — there’s a huge temptation to respond in kind. A president who has long treated women, in his words, “like shit,” and bragged about it, is enough to provoke rage in any decent person. But anger is rarely a good frame of mind to pursue the imperatives of reason, let alone to defend the norms of liberal democracy.

Good grief.

I Callahan said...

That’s pretty labyrinthine, which makes it sound like bad process, but I think I see the Rube Goldberg machine you’re building so I say no.

Right. Because the law isn't already a Rube Goldbergian nightmare.

If you're going to argue that students expelled from campus for supposed sexual harassment (who are innocent) are not affected in the long run by that expulsion, then argue it. Don't hide behind the "labyrinthine" legal system.

MikeR said...

'Define "supposed to be unpublished" for me, here. Wasn't it put out on Google Docs for pretty much anyone to view and modify right from the start?' I do not think so. I thought it was kind of word-of-mouth among Hollywood women.

I Callahan said...

which makes it sound like bad process

The "process" was the excuse the prosecutors in the Fells Acres case used for not reversing the conviction of Gerald Amirault.

With all due respect to our hostess, the process can go bag it.

Mary Beth said...

Traditionally, liberals have wanted to see politics debated without regard for the private lives of those in the fray

Traditionally, when?

bagoh20 said...

I do not understand the importance given some "intellectuals". Much of what Sullivan writes is just stupid and unthinking blather, and he's the norm. Hell, I can do that kind of work myself, and with less words.

Jupiter said...

buwaya said...
"The way to break this nasty cycle is if at some point a sufficiently powerful man is put in such a position, he fights, and so doing defeats or breaks some of his peers."

It's not the peers, buwaya. It's the hammer of the SJW's in HR, and the anvil of Equal Employment Opportunity law. Google is probably delighted to have James Damore suing them. It may prove helpful, when they are defending all the sex discrimination cases filed by women, to be able to show that they actually discriminate against men.

As long as the law maintains what is palpably false, namely that women = men, it is simply impossible for any large organization to behave rationally. To state "we hire the best, regardless of race or sex" is effectively an admission of criminal behavior. And you will be pounded until you recant or die.

Richard Fagin said...

Prof. Althouse, sorry about the labyrinthine proposal. More to the point: student expelled wrongfully and it's on his record; he has trouble finding a job and there's good reason to believe the expulsion is a factor. This does happen. Student wants to sue university. What's the claim? For libel, he has to prove (1) that university made a false and defamatory statement; (2)university made an unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; (3) university acted at least negligently in publishing the communication; and (4) damages. How about a presumption that any or all four elements of libel are satisfied if student can prove the expulsion was wrongful. No Rube Goldberg intended. The intent was to give wrongfully expelled students another stick to beat universities with. Tort law can be a useful stick for changing behavior. Callahan, if there ever was a case for doing away with prosecutorial immunity, Gerald Amirault is it.

Jupiter said...

Evil people are taking over our country. "Live and Let Live" is becoming flatly impossible. When something can't continue, it will stop.

buwaya said...

"It's not the peers, buwaya."

Its the peers. HR are flunkies.
Its not the law creating this mess, but an "emperors new clothes" situation among people who make genuine business decisions. Enforcement is not a matter of law but of careers, contracts, and financing.

CJinPA said...

I do not understand the importance given some "intellectuals". Much of what Sullivan writes is just stupid and unthinking blather, and he's the norm. Hell, I can do that kind of work myself, and with less words.

I think there was plenty in his piece that you did not know before you read it (assuming you read it.)

Paul Snively said...

"[Debbie] Harry looks back. 'All my friends that are' — she pauses to find the right word — 'multigender people have always said, "You’re just another drag queen." I’m happy to live with that. Some of the greatest artists have been transgender.'

'I think maybe "gender-ambiguous" would be more polite,' [Chris] Stein says.

Harry sighs, the sound of someone who has been ahead of the social-curve for so long now wondering if she has fallen behind. 'I’m confused at this point as to who to call what, or why it matters so much.'

'Because sexuality, like the music world, has an infinite array of sub-genres, and somebody is going to be offended by being included in someone else’s sub-genre,' Stein explains."

Parallel lives: Deborah Harry and Chris Stein on Blondie’s legacy

Debbie Harry, sincere combatant for social unity by breaking down self-imposed categorical barriers. Chris Stein, equally sincere combatant for social unity by establishing atomistic categorical barriers everyone must learn and accord with.

I'm with her.

Yancey Ward said...

DKWalser,

I think you meant Christopher Hitchens, not Hicks.

buwaya said...

Brendan Eich is the important case.
There was no HR issue. There wasn't even a speech issue - he said nothing.
There was no legal concern.

"As long as the law maintains what is palpably false, namely that women = men"

Its not even that. Its certainly not about that alone. It is anything to do with the current political atmosphere.

Another case, for example, is Curtis Yarvin (ex. Mencius Moldbug)
He has been blackballed not for anything that would be an HR issue, but simply for writing on political philosophy.

DKWalser said...

...I do not think so. I thought it was kind of word-of-mouth among Hollywood women.

Kinda, sorta. I believe the industry was the publishing industry, not Hollywood. But, once a spreadsheet has been disseminated to a large group, by whatever means, for all intents and purposes it has been published. It's only a matter of time before the contents of the spreadsheet will be 'leaked' beyond the intended audience. If the creator of the spreadsheet expected that women in the industry would be able to view it, add to it, and edit it, without it getting out to the public at large, she was awfully naive.

It's kinda like when the outgoing Obama administration disseminated raw, unverified 'intelligence' data about Donald Trump throughout the 17 federal intelligence agencies (this was a major departure from past practice and required a new executive order permitting it). Who could have imagined that that information would soon thereafter leak to the press? You'd half think they wanted the information to leak!

DKWalser said...

DKWalser,

I think you meant Christopher Hitchens, not Hicks.


Absolutely! My bad.

buwaya said...

Ultimately what you are getting, not impeded by modern politics, not Trump, not Republicans, not whatever worthy Governor currently serving, is a totalitarian culture.

Not a totalitarian polity, but a culture. More like "Brave New World" than "1984".
This is the consequence, thirty years on, of the process described by Alan Bloom.

To break out of it, if you can break out of it, you will need a genuine revolution.

mockturtle said...

To break out of it, if you can break out of it, you will need a genuine revolution.

Not gonna happen, buwaya. So long as people have bread and circuses they will put up with totalitarianism.

Sheridan said...

What scares me is that the potential for "Bleeding Kansas" lives within humanities genome. And people either don't know that or refuse to acknowledge it. Every person on the planet, not just trained warriors is capable of inflicting horrors almost beyond imagining on other humans. Better to be cautious in one's interactions with other people and to treat those people not with contempt but with civility and respect and tolerance. And if possible, to convey to those people that they should treat you the same way for the same reasons. This is not an argument to "leave me alone". It's an argument to respect me for who I am and what I believe. Because the consequences of exerting domination over me are unacceptable.

Rusty said...

It is the cultural Marxism of the left. Letting them define the language and the institutions.
The fix? don't let them control the language.

Jupiter said...

buwaya said...

"Its not the law creating this mess, but an "emperors new clothes" situation among people who make genuine business decisions."

That's true in the high-profile cases. But I've seen how it plays out in the trenches. When you are sued for discrimination, you can't just pay out and go on. You will be sued again and again, and your only hope is to find some way to signal to the courts that you have surrendered. Thus HR = PR, and the top-level people have to act enthusiastic about hiring people who can't do the work. Any other course will see their organization destroyed. So they establish very strong incentives, and those incentives operate as designed. I have been told flat out that I am a perfect fit for a position, but they cannot hire me because I am a white male. And I have seen managers openly state that they were making a "diversity hire" because there were no qualified candidates for the position, so they may as well use it to improve their numbers.

Howard said...

"Como el Mundo Vueltas"

Darrell said...

Just wait 'til the ficus plants become sapient. . .

buwaya said...

"That's true in the high-profile cases."

Its true in all speech cases, which are the important ones. This is not really about "diversity" in hiring, or addressing behavior as with college tribunals, but ultimately ideology.

Heck, if it were about hiring alone it would simply be, effectively, a tax on hiring. Which it is, you get more FTE's than you could get away with without it. That is sub-optimal but survivable.

Jupiter said...

Blogger buwaya said...

"Another case, for example, is Curtis Yarvin (ex. Mencius Moldbug)
He has been blackballed not for anything that would be an HR issue, but simply for writing on political philosophy."

Again, I've seen how that plays out. Large organizations have internal forums, where people can post comments. Inevitably, the people who are harmed by PC hiring will question the logic behind it. And then they are attacked. Not as being wrong, but as being racist, sexist, homophobic -- evil. And the organization does not act against the attackers. It acts against the attacked. And therefore the suppression of non-PC views very quickly becomes corporate policy. You can't get a job if you don't parrot the PC line. And you can't keep the job you've got if it becomes known that you have the wrong opinions.

Paul Snively said...

buwaya: Another case, for example, is Curtis Yarvin (ex. Mencius Moldbug)
He has been blackballed not for anything that would be an HR issue, but simply for writing on political philosophy.


I met Curtis at LambdaConf 2016, at which we both presented—and for which, to document my bias, I submitted to the CFP only after the controversy arose because he made it through LambdaConf's double-blind abstract evaluation process, after sponsors and volunteers attempted to "heckler's veto" LambdaConf the way Strange Loop was subjected to a heckler's veto (and caved).

The scene: a bunch of people standing in line for lunch from the food trucks outside the venue. A little knot of people around Curtis. No idea whether any, some, or all of them knew who he was. He said or did absolutely nothing to draw attention to himself, positive or negative. Nice guy, as far as I can tell. Frankly, I suspect I'm a bigger jerk than he is.

Birkel said...

Are universities free to ignore the First Amendment? If not, why?
The Fourth?
The Fifth?
The Sixth?
The Eighth.

Althouse seems at ease with the idea that due process rights can be significantly altered by a state actor from those which are required at criminal trial. Why not all the other attendant rights, guaranteed against the states through the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment? Shall universities operate in loco parentis as they do in primary school? What level of infantilizing will be sufficient?

Especially, as IRL, it is boys who suffer disparate treatment by these universities?

Hey! I know. Let's just pretend Althouse is correct and have universities continue to cut checks to the boys whose lives they've damaged. Good plan.

MikeR said...

"But, once a spreadsheet has been disseminated to a large group, by whatever means, for all intents and purposes it has been published. It's only a matter of time before the contents of the spreadsheet will be 'leaked' beyond the intended audience."
Yeah, I understand the problem. There is the same problem with lists of child abusers; you can google them and find out terrible things about innocent people. (I think)
But the lists serve an important purpose. We can't let these people go on abusing children, and we need ways to help people come together to tell their stories.
I understand the problem with innocent people accused, but I'm not willing to let people abuse children because of it. All of us need to use our heads, and not assume someone is guilty because they're on a list. A friend of mine was accused on one of them. Five different accusations came in within a few hours, all anonymous. And no more accusations ever, before or since. But he has a big problem now. Presumably he is innocent and someone somewhere doesn't like him.

Jupiter said...

The advantage of an ideology based upon the lie of equality is twofold. It enables you to attack anyone who opposes you as an oppressor defending his unfair advantage. And it enables you to recruit supporters who know that they owe everything they have to their willingness to go along enthusiastically with whatever specious nonsense you cook up next.

Static Ping said...

Ann: I support due process, but the due process required to expel a student from school (I'm assuming a public university) isn't the same as is required to convict him of a crime, even if the accusation is of behavior that could be prosecuted as a crime.

This is quite true. There are expellable offenses in colleges, like cheating or plagiarism, that are not crimes.

That said, colleges and universities are creating a contract with each student with responsibilities on both sides. It is not acceptable to simply expel someone for no reason, especially when you are keeping their money. It is not acceptable to expel someone unless the student could know ahead of time what the standards for expulsion are. It is most certainly not acceptable to create a quasi-judicial process for expulsion and then remove all the safeguards of a normal judicial process so the results are indistinguishable from expulsion by fiat.

This becomes far most complicated by the "Dear Colleague" letter which was a veiled threat by the government to setup these quasi-judicial processes or else. Once the school become a de facto government agent, then requirements on the school increased significantly. From what we have seen, in many schools the standards actually dropped below normal expulsion proceedings. You cannot do the government's bidding and then claim government standards do not apply.

Jupiter said...

Blogger MikeR said...
"Presumably he is innocent and someone somewhere doesn't like him."

What? No. Presumably he is guilty. That's why it's called "the presumption of guilt". Why would his name be on a list of guilty people if he were innocent? Burn the witch.

Earnest Prole said...

Sullivan is making a category error. He quite correctly defends the principle that ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty, but he offers no example of an innocent person being found guilty; instead he's complaining about some names on some kind of list. Call me up when someone on that list is deprived of liberty by the government.

Fernandistein said...

buwaya said...
And as for attending classes/lectures


I had a "required" freshman civil engineering class which everyone hated. On the first day of class he handed out a test schedule and said the tests would be open book*, so come the date of the first test I checked the book out of library, attended class for the second time and took the test. When I showed up a few weeks later for the second test, it was just a normal class. Turns out everyone except me had done so shittily on the first test (I got the highest with a 90-something, class average was in the 30s) that he'd rescheduled everything. The guy was cool about it and we worked something out - he didn't care that I hadn't bought the book even though he'd written it. "Statics" IIRC.

*find the pages which contain the problem's key-words.

Jupiter said...

Static Ping said...

"It is not acceptable to simply expel someone for no reason, especially when you are keeping their money."

Not to pick on you in particular, SP, but this is backwards. The process begins with the people who are not expelled because they were never admitted. If it is acceptable for the universities to reject candidates for political reasons, as they most assuredly do, then why is it unacceptable for them to belatedly correct the occasional error in the admissions process?

buwaya said...

If you meet Yarvin again, let him know he has a fan on Althouse!

Birkel said...

$850,000 from James Madison University (plus legal fees?) seems a bit low. Althouse would be pleased to continue cutting such checks.

James Madison, a Founding Father and author of many Federalist Papers, thought Natural Rights against state actors were a thing.

College administrators cut checks using OPM.

I Callahan said...

Call me up when someone on that list is deprived of liberty by the government.

Well almost all colleges accept federal funding, which makes them an extension of that government. That aside, you proceed from the usual false assumption that the only way to be deprived of liberty is by the government directly. As Brandon Eich can tell you, that belief is pure bullshit.

langford peel said...

This is just another argument for segregating the university into men and woman's schools.

We need universities dedicated to men as we had in the old days. Women can go to all girl schools or coed schools.

But if men are serious about education and want to avoid distractions they should attend an all male school.

We can have sex robots now so who needs a bunch of needy broads following us around carrying a mattress.

langford peel said...

Just as an executive should never be alone with a female a male student should never interact with a female student. No good will come of it.

I mean what are you going to gain? Women have nothing worthwhile to add to your college experience. They are just going to yap about bullshit and when you don't give them anal they will follow you around with a mattress and get you thrown out of school.

Or publish an article about you in Rolling Stone when you never even met the bitch.

Or they will accuse you of rape when you never met them. Even though the whore admitted to molesting her sister when she was a kid. You know what the politically correct do with a bitch like that? They give her a new show on HBO.

langford peel said...

Face it your college experience and learning environment will be greatly enhanced if you don't have to deal with a bunch of needy, whiny broads. Just save your sexuality for townies or the strip club. Get yourself a nice working class chick at Hooters or something.

Or better yet hook up with a hot Brazilians who wants a green card like Ritmo. Or get a nice sexy Eastern European piece of tail like the President did. (Funny how they both love foreign pussy. They are a lot alike in many ways) Then you will get value for your money.

A sexual relationship with a college woman is a recipe for disaster. Avoid them at all costs boys. They will ruin you. Its what they do.

bagoh20 said...

"I think there was plenty in his piece that you did not know before you read it (assuming you read it.)'

I did. There wasn't. I read not a single idea there that I had not read before elsewhere, but it did include some simply wrong, and/or lazy, thinking and assertions, some of which have been quoted here. That's fine. We all do that, but my point is it's all very common, not special, creative or insightful. The culture is full of naked emperors over tiny empires, many getting paid for their fashion sense.

Caligula said...

"I support due process, but the due process required to expel a student from school (I'm assuming a public university) isn't the same as is required to convict him of a crime, even if the accusation is of behavior that could be prosecuted as a crime."

Increasingly it seems not so much a matter of "due process" as a matter of no substantive protections for the accused at all. No right to discovery, no right to a jury, no right to an impartial judge, no right to counsel, no right to cross-examine witnesses. And all driven by some Title IX ideologue who can and will serve as your investigator, prosecutor and judge. Someone who starts from a point of just knowing that you wouldn't have been accused if you hadn't done something.

It's not quite an inquisition because there's no pre-trial torture and there will be no auto-da-fe. But there are nonetheless some serious adverse consequences, and it's still closer to an inquisition than to any sort of tribunal that's bound by due process.


"Oberlin College’s 100% sexual assault conviction rate prompts lawsuit, due process concerns"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/4/oberlin-college-sex-assault-conviction-rate-100/

Rick said...

buwaya said...
Its the peers. HR are flunkies.


HR are flunkies, but many / most board members and senior execs are reacting to avoid media attention rather than from their own beliefs. This is why left wing control of media is so dangerous and we'll all be better off if the media can be eliminated.

The danger is that the belief businesses must internalize left wing beliefs comes to dominate the entirety of private industry beforehand. We see from the Damore debacle the radical left's tactics and beliefs are already more prevalent than any opposition in Silicon Valley. In that case radical Googlers and outsiders misstated the facts which colluding radical leadership then accepted and acted as if those misstatements were true. This included claims that Damore said women were incompetent programmers and that those statements constituted threats or harassment. I think most senior leadership is smart enough to understand this is all nonsense but saying so puts them under fire.

If support for left wing beliefs comes to be seen as a requirement to become a manager it will be too late to stop even if media pressure abates. And this is exactly what the left wants and is pursuing. We'll have an eternal political blacklist which can't be criticized because colluding management will claim critics are attacking "vulnerable" minorities.

SeanF said...

langford peel: Or better yet hook up with a hot Brazilians who wants a green card like Ritmo.

I had no idea Ritmo was Brazilian.

Static Ping said...

Jupiter: Not to pick on you in particular, SP, but this is backwards. The process begins with the people who are not expelled because they were never admitted. If it is acceptable for the universities to reject candidates for political reasons, as they most assuredly do, then why is it unacceptable for them to belatedly correct the occasional error in the admissions process?

Once enrolled in the school, there is a contract formed. There is a big difference between refusing to do business with someone and refusing to fulfill the requirements of a contract. Expelling someone without proper cause while keeping their money is essentially fraud.

bagoh20 said...

"Expelling someone without proper cause while keeping their money is essentially fraud."

Yes it is, and this practice has been at least constructive fraud, but now we know what universities are offering, including unilateral breach of contract as an accepted part of the deal. Simply refuse to go there. Nothing will fix this faster, becuase the power of the market eventually overpowers even totalitarian regimes as exist on campus. As expensive as university is, I can't believe students and their parents accept this shit. It reminds me of the women who put up with sexual assualt to preserve their jobs at a place and with people who assault them. Just say "no".

Gahrie said...

A sexual relationship with a college woman is a recipe for disaster. Avoid them at all costs boys. They will ruin you.

It's what I have been telling the college bound boys at my high school.

Rick said...

Expelling someone without proper cause while keeping their money is essentially fraud.

Expulsions are a tiny part of the issue. This entire process was designed to ensure left wing political domination. Paying back the tuition of a handful of people expelled as examples doesn't redress the intimidation tactics used on the remaining and vastly larger population.

Achilles said...

Static Ping said...

Expelling someone without proper cause while keeping their money is essentially fraud.

Actually they are saving the vast majority of kids they expel at least some amount of time they would have wasted in classes.

The university system is only surviving now on rich foreign students. The industries that are heavily understaffed: Nursing, Software Development, Engineering are not being served well by the university system. Software development in particular is moving away from universities which are by design too slow to keep up with changing technology.

The whole thing is going to collapse when XXXX studies majors stop paying their student loans and the industry goes through a collapse similar to the mortgage collapse in 2008.

Bay Area Guy said...

A sexual relationship with a college woman is a recipe for disaster. Avoid them at all costs boys. They will ruin you. Its what they do.

Too general. The problem is leftist college women, not all women. Find a nice good looking conservative or apolitical gal - and you'll do fine.

langford peel said...

Big mistake. Because even if she is conservative her best friend will be a feminist cock blocker with a cat who will convince her that you are a rapist when you don't call her back.

Stick with the townies with the big tits and the low self esteem.

The worst thing that could happen is you have to pay some child support.

langford peel said...

Better yet follow the lead of The League of Extradinary Gentleman like Ritmo, President Trump and Shouting Thomas and get yourself some of that foreign pussy.

They won't say boo even if they have a mouth full.....of you.

Stay away from college educated American women. They are a plague upon our nation.

Jim at said...

Scratch a Leftist, find a totalitarian....

No scratching needed for most of them.

Lem said...

The time off has done Sully good.

ALP said...

If real life is now like a university, does this mean we are all going to gain our Freshman Ten....again????

Bad Lieutenant said...

Anybody remember this show?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branded_(TV_series)

...
Branded!
Friends are a thing unknown!
What do you do when you're branded?
Can you go on alone?
...
source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/brandedlyrics.html


And people wonder why Rose McGowan's agent did the Dutch?

Bob said...

buwaya: "This is the consequence, thirty years on, of the process described by Alan Bloom."

Ah! You reference one of my favorite books, The Closing of the American Mind.

PB said...

Track everything. Tape everything. Be ready to respond. And sue.

chickelit said...

A president who has long treated women, in his words, “like shit,” and bragged about it, is enough to provoke rage in any decent person.

This from a guy who treats shit holes like women.

n.n said...

Here's a hypothesis. The Salem Witch trials, as progressive baby trials, were wicked solutions carried forward by female chauvinists in a bid to remove competing interests, present and conceived.

John Lynch said...

The extension of academic norms, including plagiarism, to the rest of society is a disaster.