Althouse: "The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment."

October 15, 2014

"The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment."

"The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom. The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials. We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community."

A letter from 28 Harvard Law professors. Nicely done.

Interesting recognition of noblesse oblige, by the way.

26 comments:

Brando said...: Sad that universities, which should exist as the ideal of free thinking debate and thought, are becoming such bastions of intolerance, dogma and intellectual repression. It is nice to see some stakeholders fighting back.; 10/15/14, 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Question for lefties:

Joe is accused of murder. How many guilty "Joes" would you see set free, to prevent one innocent "Joe" from being punished?

Joe is accused of rape / sexual harassment: How many guilty "Joes" would you see set free, to prevent one innocent "Joe" from being punished?

Or, is the questions How many innocent "Joes" would you see set punished wrongly, to prevent one guilty "Joe" from being set free?

Please explain the difference between your two answers.; 10/15/14, 11:34 AM
Brando said...: gregq--here's another question for lefties. Considering young black men are disproportionately likely to be accused of rape and sex crimes, how many more young black men do they want to see denied due process rights to further their goal of reducing rape and sex crimes?

Leftists generally like to imagine that the targets of their ridiculous campus policies are rich white lacrosseplayers and entitled frat boys. The truth is if they truly are rich and entitled--and let's face it, white--they are more likely to have the sort of influence to get off with a warning. Do they think the black guy at school on a scholarship with no family pull will have an easier or harder time avoiding discipline?

The clash of leftisms' two sacred victim groups--blacks and women--will be very interesting to watch.; 10/15/14, 11:42 AM
Wince said...: We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats.

When did the Obama administration become the mayor of Faber?

Dean Vernon Wormer: Carmine, I don't think it's right that you should extort money from the college...

Mayor Carmine De Pasto: So, if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken.; 10/15/14, 11:51 AM
rhhardin said...: They're miffed that the law school wasn't consulted on a matter of law.

It's a power play.; 10/15/14, 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: The twenty-eight Professors are writing their apologies to The Vagina as Fascist State as we speak. It will all be a misunderstanding.; 10/15/14, 11:55 AM
Lucien said...: Haven't read the policy, but it apparently covers faculty, so . . .; 10/15/14, 11:59 AM
rehajm said...: We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country

Haves beat have nots again!; 10/15/14, 12:07 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Nicely done."

Agreed, but it's a shame we don't approach more issues in a like-minded manner.

I think the undignified battle for gay marriage would've been a great place to start,...; 10/15/14, 12:10 PM
Virgil Hilts said...: Bravo. Agree with Brando; I think some on the left are starting to realize that if these concepts are implemented on a wide basis, the most impacted group of men will probably (again) end up being minorities, who already are disproportionately prosecuted. Also, male college athletes with pro prospects are going to become huge targets for shakedowns. They already are, but shifting the burden of proof is going to make them even easier targets. Get ready for about 10 or 20 Jameis Winston stories a year (not saying he was innocent, BTW).; 10/15/14, 12:11 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I mean, good for them for this stand, but will the recognition of this problem cause any Harvard profs to examine how their own ideological beliefs lead to outcomes just like this? The people they support are acting on their shared ideology. That the results of those actions cause a conflict with these profs' values w/r/t justice/rule of law really ought to make them examine the contradictions and subsequently abandon the political ideology that is at fault (and support for those who hold those beliefs)...but somehow I doubt that is a likely outcome.; 10/15/14, 12:27 PM
damikesc said...: Remember, back in the 1950's, when universities were all "squares" for not embracing free love and sex.

Now, that mentality is PROGRESSIVE.

Man, the hippies sold themselves out on EVERY possible issue.

Get ready for about 10 or 20 Jameis Winston stories a year (not saying he was innocent, BTW).

If I was Winston, I'd drop out of FSU and mention, specifically, the lack of due process.

It wouldn't hurt his NFL prospects any more than his behavior already has and it shows that he is leaving for an actual reason.

FSU, however, would shit bricks if the alumni saw one of their golden tickets walking away because of this idiotic policy.; 10/15/14, 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Harvard can afford to stand up to the bullying cadres. This just means that bullying resources will be re-directed toward easier prey.; 10/15/14, 12:42 PM
Todd said...: Anglelyne said...
Harvard can afford to stand up to the bullying cadres. This just means that bullying resources will be re-directed toward easier prey.
10/15/14, 12:42 PM

Bullying resources always are. A bully has to bully. Over time only the targets change.; 10/15/14, 12:49 PM
Trashhauler said...: Given that false reporting by women happens so seldom, then we better see nearly all complaints of sexual assault result in the expulsion on a male student.

If University X receives 100 complaints of sexual assault a year, then they should expel at least 98 students. Otherwise, University X is complicit in the war on women.; 10/15/14, 12:51 PM
Fen said...: We had a rash of frivolous complaints by feminists at work. Solution? When one of them innocently leaned across one guy (pressing her breasts against his back) to reach for something, he filed a sexual harassment claim with HR against her.

Stopped that shit real quick. The look of shock on her face as she walked out of HR was priceless.

Do that at universities and the bs will end - everytime a female flirts with you, file a complaint, destroy her life.; 10/15/14, 1:18 PM
campy said...: "If University X receives 100 complaints of sexual assault a year, then they should expel at least 98 students. Otherwise, University X is complicit in the war on women."

That's not enough. University X needs to expel at least 500 men for every 100 complaints, to account for all the unreported rapes.; 10/15/14, 1:32 PM
Insufficiently Sensitive said...: What an encouraging development. Even if it's only 28 out of the hordes of professors at Harvard, it's a clear articulation of what the MSM and the Obama admin have been too craven to put in focus about their thinly-disguised legal bullying of males on University campuses.

Duly noted: the Seattle Times has a huge sucking vacuum where a reference to this breaking news should be.; 10/15/14, 1:45 PM
Beldar said...: Well, in every exercise of selflessness from a Harvard grad, there's an implied disclaimer: "Except for Yalies ...."

Nevertheless, I wish them success in their efforts.; 10/15/14, 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: When my alma mater in a midwestern state with a small native minority population decided hate crimes were worse than regular crimes the first person I am aware of to receive a more severe discipline was a
black male student who had whipped his girlfriend with a power cord and made a comment about slaves being whipped. I doubt that increased punishment for black people was the plan of the supporters of the hate crime category.; 10/15/14, 2:57 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Open letter from the University of Wisconsin Law School coming in 3...2..1...?; 10/15/14, 3:37 PM
Big Mike said...: @Brando, are you thinking of Jameis Winston?; 10/15/14, 4:04 PM
Saint Croix said...: Elizabeth Bartholet
Scott Brewer
Robert Clark
Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus
Christine Desan
Charles Donahue
Einer Elhauge
Allen Ferrell
Martha Field
Jesse Fried
Nancy Gertner
Janet Halley
Bruce Hay
Philip Heymann
David Kennedy
Duncan Kennedy
Robert Mnookin
Charles Nesson
Charles Ogletree
Richard Parker
Mark Ramseyer
David Rosenberg
Lewis Sargentich
David Shapiro, Emeritus
Henry Steiner, Emeritus
Jeannie Suk
Lucie White
David Wilkins

Nicely done

Harvard has 122 law professors. The rest of them suck eggs, apparently.; 10/15/14, 4:54 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: I too applaud the Harvard Law Professors who signed this letter. They have the standing (and the tenure) to do this. This will encourage other law professors around the country to speak up for the rule of law and due process, too, and not cower under their desks for fear of being labelled a supporter of "rape culture."; 10/15/14, 6:01 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: This whole thing is ridiculous, but congrats to these Harvard profs. This push by the Obama admin is just part of their War on Men, aimed at getting out the female vote in this election year. Women should be insulted that they are now being treated as, if anything, as even more infantile than before the female liberation of the latter 1960s and early 1970s. They go out, intentionally get blotto drunk, have sex, then regret it when the guys don't reciprocate the attachment they feel after the sex. So, the Administration is pushing hard on instituting kangaroo courts to expel young males, with as little due process as they can get away with, whenever college women regret their sexual decisions.

Little good will come of this. Fewer and fewer males will go to the colleges that buy into this. Exclusively male schools would boom - except that they are illegal (but exclusively female colleges are somehow still legal). Fewer males in college will likely result in fewer females (apparently a lot of aspiring coeds already include the sex ratio in determining where to go to college). And, with more women than men attending college, there are likely to be many more old maids, thanks to the preference of women to marry up, not down (already seeing this in the Black community). And, of course, these are make believe rules, and don't apply to sex between men and women once they enter the real world after college, when the cops are going to just laugh at the young college aged women who want them to do something about being being wronged when they get drunk, or climb into bed with someone that have been intimate with. They are probably more likely to actually getting sexually assaulted in the long run than if they hadn't lived under the unreality of these campus sexual assault regimes.

But it doesn't matter, because this sells with too many women, who are willing to trade their votes for being infantilized.; 10/16/14, 5:34 AM
campy said...: "... of course, these are make believe rules, and don't apply to sex between men and women once they enter the real world after college, ..."

They will apply after college in just a few years.; 10/16/14, 6:33 AM