July 19, 2017

The tweet that got Nick Lutz suspended from the University of Central Florida.



He's accused of cyberbullying her for posting the letter — marked up with mock pedantic comments — that she left on the windshield of his truck after he'd blocked her on his phone and on social media. He didn't reveal her name or any other information about her. He didn't threaten her. He just put up her words on a document that she'd given to him and his own humorously distanced commentary.

I'm getting the additional facts from this article in The Washington Post.
[Lutz's lawyer] wrote in the appeal that the ex-girlfriend, who felt she was cyberbullied, filed a complaint with the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, but the case was never prosecuted. She then complained to the university, where she is not a student. Several weeks later, Lutz was called into a meeting with the student conduct and Title IX directors to discuss the tweet....
The most-liked comment at WaPo is good: "He blocked her on his telephone and on social media. He wanted no contact with her. She wouldn't leave him alone. She put the letter on his personal property in an attempt to undermine his wish to cease all contact. It seems like he was the one being harassed and she was the harasser."

And the second-most-liked: "I'll say this: The guy's action towards his ex-girlfriend seems jerky and cruel. It sounds like he should apologize to her, and then both of them should move on with their lives. Having said that, I have no idea why the school would insert themselves into this. The girl isn't a student, and it's bizarre to me the school would want to give the impression that this kind of thing is their responsibility. It also seems as though the school's rules concerning conduct are so vague as to be unenforceable. I think they've opened a big can of worms here, and it will be interesting to see how the school tries to get out of this."

Notice how those 2 commenters say a lot without even getting to the First Amendment problem (which is indepedently decisive in Lutz's favor).

91 comments:

Xmas said...

I believe this guy is the victim of DARVO.

Paco Wové said...

"Title IX directors"

Is there any man they can't screw over?

Ann Althouse said...

Argument for the University: copyright violation.

Chuck said...

I have a Title IX "jurisdictional" question...

Since the woman is not a member of the university community, how is it a Title IX issue? Have we (the Obama Administration's Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, to be more correct) turned Title IX into an all-purpose, all-consuming behavior code for anyone with any connection to an institution of higher education?

If you are involved in a divorce case and your estranged spouse makes an allegation of cruelty in the pleadings, can you be the subject of a Title IX action if you happen to work for a university?

This (the April, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter from the OCR) was one of the worst of many legal abuses of the Last Occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

rhhardin said...

Curiously administrator comes from minus, indicating inferior, subordinate.

Owen said...

Prof A: "Argument for the University: copyright violation."

Argument against the University: fair use.

This incident reinforces my belief that Title IX has now been fully weaponized by the Left to suppress speech as well as behavior of any kind that is not "appropriate."

Quaestor said...

So how much does he demand in compensatory/punitive? $20 million and settle for $5?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

No one expects the Inqui . . . Title IX directors.

Quaestor said...

If you send someone a letter, particularly an unsolicited one, how does the author of the letter claim a copyright?

Quaestor said...

Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and a fanatical devotion to Herbert Marcuse.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Don't put it in writing.

Gahrie said...

He is guilty of the worst crime you can commit in the U.S. today....he made a woman feel bad.

Gahrie said...

Argument for the University: copyright violation

I rather doubt she filed for copyright protection. Anyway, fair use.

Quaestor said...

Regarding copyrights of personal letters, suppose that in discovery UCF demands all of the ex-gf's letters in the possession of Nick Lutz. Do they need a copyright waiver to enter them into evidence?

Virgil Hilts said...

Instead of these useless new student required lectures on diversity, they should make all freshmen men attend a short seminar on the hot crazy matrix. This young woman was obviously in the danger zone of the upper right quadrant.

John Tuffnell said...

I'll play devil's advocate.

Maybe they don't want an asshole for an employee. If they think what he did makes them look bad they should take disciplinary action. He can go enjoy his first amendment rights without being associated with the university.

Gahrie said...

Maybe they don't want an asshole for an employee

He's not an employee. He's a customer.

traditionalguy said...

This broken genuinely hurt , tender hearted woman is a potential student. So a Title IX preemptive strike is the only correct response.

So Revoke his Maleness and give him 10,000 hours of community service.

EDH said...

If I got his red-line closing comment correct...

"...the gesture is appreciated. I would prefer details over statements. Revision for half credit will be accepted."

While I agree the letter was way too long on her inner emotions rather than the substance of their relationship, how can he argue he was seeking no contact based on his comment?

Gahrie said...

how can he argue he was seeking no contact based on his comment?

It was a joke, son..I say a joke....

He didn't actually send the letter back to her seeking a revision.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think that he doesn't need to name his ex on Social Media for the people who know them to know that he's ridiculing her.

This though seems like a case of two adults acting badly/awkwardly and, frankly, I wish they could resolve it between themselves instead of involving the entire internet.

John Tuffnell said...

"Maybe they don't want an asshole for an employee

He's not an employee. He's a customer."

Ah yes, I see that now. Makes it hard to justify.

Clyde said...

Obviously Betsy DeVos needs to kick someone's ass at UCF.

Owen said...

Prof A: "Argument for the University: copyright violation." Does the University hold an interest in the copyright here? On what basis can it invoke another's interest as a predicate for deploying its own nuclear strike (Title IX)? If Lutz had plagiarized his ex-gf's bestselling novel, could the University have used that property claim by a stranger (the ex-gf) to use Title IX to go after Lutz? "We read the court filings and we think you will lose the plagiarism case, so that makes you a thief and you can't work here."

Is that how this stuff works now?

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
"Argument for the University: copyright violation"

I rather doubt she filed for copyright protection. Anyway, fair use.

It's how the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case got started. Hulk/Terry's first cause of action was a suit to enjoin publication, under a copyright infringement theory. The cause of action bounced around, from federal district court to Florida state courts, and up and down on appeal, with the final upshot being that an injunction that was originally granted was later overturned on First Amendment grounds as a prior restraint.

Bollea v Gawker might actually -- as a Florida published appeal -- be good precedent that would help Nick Lutz. At least for the copyright cause of action.

Chuck said...

Clyde said...
Obviously Betsy DeVos needs to kick someone's ass at UCF.

On it, Clyde...
;-)

Rick said...

Having said that, I have no idea why the school would insert themselves into this. The girl isn't a student, and it's bizarre to me the school would want to give the impression that this kind of thing is their responsibility.

This commenter doesn't understand today's University environment. The school will claim Title IX requires this action, but their true motivation is establishing their right to punish students without limitation so their radfem activists have the broadest range of action possible.

Rick said...

Ann Althouse said...
Argument for the University: copyright violation.


Doesn't the act of giving someone a letter mean it is theirs?

Sebastian said...

"It also seems as though the school's rules concerning conduct are so vague as to be unenforceable." Progs like it that way--the vagueness, that is. They'll "enforce" anything until someone stops them.

"I think they've opened a big can of worms here." The can was already open.

"Notice how those 2 commenters say a lot without even getting to the First Amendment problem (which is indepedently decisive in Lutz's favor)." That just depends on what kinds of judges would get involved. Living Constitutionalists can kill or create any rights they damn well please. Which in this case might put die-hard originalists in a bind, since the incorporation doctrine and its application to public universities aren't exactly right there in the public meaning of the actual text.

Progressivism = Neo-Puritanism + State Power.

Laslo Spatula said...

She may indeed be crazy, or just high-strung and in love (splitting a woman's hairs, yes).

But his desire to publicly humiliate her to the world strikes me as what the French call 'a dick move'.

The internet's ability to casually cause widespread harm with little-to-no effort is The Devil's Temptation to the Passive-Agressive.

Her running to the authorities was the wrong step though, when the obvious next step was for her to write a response letter grading his sexual equipment and abilities.

I am Laslo.



I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

What a galloping herd of asshats. The guy is crude, undignified, snide, and ungentlemanly. The university is voluntarily involving itself in a childish playground spat. Is no one an adult in this situation?

Big Mike said...

The ex is as big a jerk as he is, but if you suspended all the professors who are jerks, who'd be left to teach the classes? (Now that Althouse is retired, I mean. ;-)

lgv said...

I don't understand the copyright theory either. Have not others published letters received from others?

The commenters don't mention the 1st amendment because they don't even have to play that card. Will the university inject itself into all relationships of its staff? Well, probably just male staff. We all know how this will end. UCF, pull out your checkbook.



Henry said...

He should have laminated the letter and left it on his truck.

I hope he submits the boiled pet rabbit as evidence.

Laslo Spatula said...

Being that I am a Highly Desired Man of Mystery, I've had a lot of chicks write me obsessive letters.

I usually write a kind reply thanking them for their interest, but gently let them know that I'm a Free Bird, And This Bird You Cannot Change.

Highly Desired Men of Mystery must remain Gentlemen.

I am Laslo.

Bob Ellison said...

"Fair use" is a flimsy conceit.

Copyright is dying. IP in general is dying.

Henry said...

It is interesting to me that cyberbullying has pulled ahead of regular bullying in terms of seriousness. Strange virtual world.

Probably because cyberbullying always provides evidence.

Bonkti said...

Some college should award Trump an honorary doctorate and then put the screws to him over his unsympathetic treatment of the hookers who peed on the bed.

lgv said...

I just did a search. The letter is indeed covered by copyright laws.

Ann Althouse said...

"Since the woman is not a member of the university community, how is it a Title IX issue? Have we (the Obama Administration's Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, to be more correct) turned Title IX into an all-purpose, all-consuming behavior code for anyone with any connection to an institution of higher education?"

If I wanted to defend the university, I would say that the Title IX problem is inequality in the educational environment and the university has a legal duty to curate the setting it provides for its students. The tweet was very high profile (because it was so widely shared in social media), and so the inclusion of Nick Lutz in the student body sent a message to all students that women are to be disparaged and mocked. To exclude him would be to say: this is a special place, where students of all genders are welcome and equally valued.

In that light, it doesn't matter that the ex-girlfriend, the author of the photographed and displayed letter, was not a student. By the same token, the school might want to control what kinds of posters appear on its building's walls and reject posters that are denigrating in a gender-based way. It wouldn't be a good argument to say that the women depicted on the posters are not students. The problem is the effect on minds, and going to school surrounded by sexist posters is a Title IX problem if it is understood as creating unequal conditions for women and men.

Ann Althouse said...

The poster problem is easier to understand because the university would be controlling the physical environment. Reaching out into social media is a big stretch. The idea has to be that the person, Nick Lutz, is seen and experienced by other students as the message that's in his tweet. I think that's a bad argument, but I do think that would have to be their argument.

Bob Ellison said...

"The Poster Problem" should be the title of the NetFlix miniseries.

Swede said...

When the zombie apocalypse comes, Title IX directors are going to be my primary source of long pork.

Sebastian said...

"To exclude him would be to say: this is a special place, where students of all genders are welcome and equally valued." Yes, nothing signals equality like exclusion of men.

Chris N said...

I feel this post perpetuates the potential inequalities inherent in our systems of oppression (education, grading, technology)

Title X seeks to extend Title IX protections far beyond campus and into the blogosphere

Join me in turning my failures and fears in life into rules which will control others. We'll make other people to like us, and we'll all be bonded in perfect security and equality forever. Freedom is next.

Chris N said...

Hopefully Althouse you'll be available on retainer for Title X consultation.

Title XI will focus on space equality.

All your base are belong to us.

Spiros Pappas said...

I don't know. Teenage boys are told to save all their tweets and texts and the rest of their trashy, tawdry communications. They are told to do this in order to protect themselves. So, this young man is confronted with a stalker ex-girlfriend who can easily destroy his life. What's he supposed to do? Anyways, there is a lawsuit coming, so that is also a good thing for the University to waste a few hundred thousand dollars on. All this seems kind of pointless and pathetic to me.

Francisco D said...

AA wrote: "The problem is the effect on minds, and going to school surrounded by sexist posters is a Title IX problem if it is understood as creating unequal conditions for women and men."

It's bad enough that today's high school graduates are afraid to leave their nests. If we continue to pamper children (pun intended) on through college, dealing with the real world is going to come as a tremendous shock.

Chuck said...

Wow, professor. If any mental image of the maltreatment of a woman -- member of the university community or not -- like a poster, could be subject to Title IX jurisdiction, a lot of college libraries will have to rid themselves of the art books containing Titian's The Rape of Lucretia. And about ten million other references, images, writings, recordings, et cetera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarquin_and_Lucretia_(Titian)

(I know it is not "your" argument at all. And that this comments page is Socratic.)

glenn said...

Don't s**** the townies.

Peter said...

"If I wanted to defend the university, I would say that the Title IX problem is inequality in the educational environment and the university has a legal duty to curate the setting it provides for its students."

If "the educational environment" is expanded to include Twitter, where does it end? If students required to check their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door, can "the schoolhouse" be expanded to include not only Twitter and other social media, but blogs? Paid or unpaid articles (in print, or only if electronic-only)?

If it's a contest between the First Amendment and Title IX, wouldn't your bet be that constitutional law would trump a mere statute?

Rick said...

The tweet was very high profile (because it was so widely shared in social media), and so the inclusion of Nick Lutz in the student body sent a message to all students that women are to be disparaged and mocked.

There's no reasonable support for this conclusion. First you have to prove this single message is appropriately generalizable to women rather than the specific subject, plus you would have to prove women are discriminated against in disparagement by proving no messages disparaging men exist.

Neither one of these elements has any chance of being true.

great Unknown said...

Some simple research should reveal that this is a pattern of behavior by the Title IX Office. And from there, it's a direct path - do pass GO, do collect a lot more than $200 - to a Federal RICO suit.

n.n said...

Anyone who is known to be Pro-Choice (e.g. abortionist, [class] diversitist, "=") should be suspended for creating a hostile environment that harbors conflation of logical domains; denying rights to lives deemed unworthy; cannibalizing/Planning clumps of cells and lucrative parts from wholly innocent human lives; racism, sexism, etc.; selective exclusion (e.g. political congruence/convenience); etc.

A clear and progressive threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and sexual relations.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Is it wrong that I am more interested in trying to read the letter to determine if his editing of her letter is correct, than I care about him making her look foolish on social media. And that I want to read the letter so I can laugh at her too?

I agree with the idea that she is the one in the wrong. He asked her for NO contact. What part of that didn't she get.

Owen said...

DBQ: "...read the letter...". I confess to wanting to do the same. Lutz was inconsiderate not to give us a better image to work with.

Prof A: nice articulation of the Big Nurse argument that is the University's best chance at a defense. It has nothing to do with copyright, of course. And as others have said, it would utterly crush First Amendment values. But that is a small price to pay for keeping everybody numb, I mean safe.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Virgil Hilts,

"... they should make all freshmen men attend a short seminar on the hot crazy matrix. This young woman was obviously in the danger zone of the upper right quadrant."

I very much buy this formulation. The modern day problem though is that the "hot-crazy" matrix, has been superseded by the "ugly-leftist-mattress-wearing crazy matrix" with all its concomitant societal problems.

Beach Brutus said...

"Argument for the University: copyright violation."

From my rather limited understanding of copyright law, I think that unless she registered the copyright her remedy would be limited to disgorgement of any profits he may have made. Not sure how the University would have a dog in that fight.

exiledonmainstreet said...

glenn said...
Don't s**** the townies.

7/19/17, 9:08 AM

A while back, when that awful fake rape woman at Columbia was making headlines by dragging her stupid mattress all over campus, a number of online commenters said they would advise their sons to avoid college women, who might falsely accuse them of rape at any time and limit themselves to the townies. Safer to hook up with a local waitress or receptionist rather than take a chance with a neurotic coed with a head stuffed full of third wave feminism.

It looks like this event closes off that course of action. The Nanny University is determined to interfere in the lives of students, even if they have to take up the cause of nonstudents to do so. How long before young men go the way of the Japanese ("turning Japanese" indeed) and complete their withdrawal into the safe world of porn, video games, anime, and, eventually, sexbots?

Many Japanese young men say they are afraid of women. Many American young men have actual reason to fear them.

Ann Althouse said...

"Doesn't the act of giving someone a letter mean it is theirs?"

Those pieces of paper are their property, but that doesn't mean they have the right to make copies of it. They can sell that one copy, but the author owns the right to make copies of the text.

It's just like the way owning a copy of a book means you can sell it to somebody else, but you can't photograph the pages and put them up on line for everyone to read.

Famous J.D. Salinger case:

"Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987) is a United States case on the application of copyright law to unpublished works. In a case about J.D. Salinger's unpublished letters, the Second Circuit held that the right of an author to control the way in which their work was first published took priority over the right of others to publish extracts or close paraphrases of the work under "fair use". In the case of unpublished letters, the decision was seen as favoring the individual's right to privacy over the public right to information. However, in response to concerns about the implications of this case on scholarship, Congress amended the Copyright Act in 1992 to explicitly allow for fair use in copying unpublished works, adding to 17 U.S.C. 107 the line, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.""

Oso Negro said...

A couple of points:

1) He is cruel. He had a lot of options short of what he did. What he did should limit his future dating options.
2) We are presently in the middle of a Chinese-style Cultural Revolution in academia, and the two acceptable options for white men's sexuality are a) homosexual or b) none. And God help the man that is perceived to have offended a woman!

Are the actions of the University despicable? Yes. Are the actions of the University surprising? No.

Ann Althouse said...

That is, Salinger certainly owned the copyright to the letters that were out of his possession. The copyright can be overcome by a fair use argument. Lutz would argue fair use. I'm just saying there's a copyright argument, not that he'd lose it.

Ann Althouse said...

Notice that when you write a letter, if you send it, the other person has it. In Salinger's case: "... Salinger had written to friends and others such as his neighbor, Judge Learned Hand, the novelist Ernest Hemingway, and his British publishers Hamish Hamilton and Roger Machell. The owners of these letters had donated them to the universities of Harvard, Princeton and Texas. [Salinger biographer] Hamilton was able to read them after signing forms where he agreed not to publish them without consent.[ Hamilton said, "I regard these letters as a tremendous autobiographical source ... In my view, it would be totally inconsistent with the craft of biography to omit such materials.""

Owen said...

Prof A: thanks for the cite and excerpt from Salinger case. In this context, where the user of the copyrighted letter is engaged in creating his own derivative work (the marked version of the letter) does he not have a license (or fair use defense) to publish as much of the underlying work as is reasonably needed for his readers to comprehend and appreciate his own work? Here the guy put red ink all over her letter, so it would be hard or impossible for his readers to understand his work without the full text.

As for the ex gf having any expectation of privacy: she put her letter on his windshield. Anybody could have read it or taken it away. It's about as private as a poster on a bulletin board.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oso Negro said: 1) He is cruel. He had a lot of options short of what he did. What he did should limit his future dating options

Mabye. Sometimes you have to be cruel to get through to a person who just refuses to take NO for an answer. Perhaps he had already exhausted all of his other options.

If he is limiting his dating options to rational, emotionally stable, no drama women....I don't see a downside.

The Godfather said...

When I was a kid, "bullying" meant that the big kid beat up the little kid, or gave him a noogie, or took this lunch money, etc. Making fun of somebody shouldn't be considered bullying, at least if the victim is over 15. Otherwise, everyone who mocks Trump on line, e.g., many Althouse commenters would be guilty of cyber bullying.

William said...

Doesn't the stalkee have the right to try to inhibit the stalker by acting like an asshole. The Baldwin defense. I don't know if the courts have upheld it, but I'm sympathetic to it......It's just a brief step from letters under the windshield to finding dead pets in your stewpot. Sometimes a preemptive strike is indicated.

n.n said...

The analogy to grading in a social venue is crying fire in a crowded theater. This guy is so unconstitutional. Perhaps he could buy a press pass.

Etienne said...

The part that confuses most people, is that Florida, while being a fake state, is in reality - a third world country.

When General Sherman was sent there as a new Lieutenant, his task was to remove all the Natives and ship their asses to Oklahoma.

It didn't take him very long to realize, that the natives loved their land, and they thrived upon all the game and fish. Meanwhile, he and his soldiers found the place a shit-hole.

Sherman thought it was stupid, to take a swamp, and move the people to the beautiful and rich farm land in the west.

So after all the natives were killed or moved, what became of Florida, is the swamp filled in with white trash, and their slaves.

Film at 11...

Ralph L said...

He didn't correct her "between you and I."
When your ex writes you an apology letter so you grade it to send it back
He must be an English professor.

Would the university have acted if the sexes were reversed? Gotta protect the women, because that's the feminist thing to do.

Birkel said...

The idea, pervasive everywhere to my eye, that the person is a jerk and therefore...

Is a terrible fabrication meant to undermine the basic protections Americans enjoy against state actors. The university is a state actor and the rules must apply.

Further, didn't Althouse have a rule that what women do is normal and what men do must therefore be judged deviant or abnormal? Seems applicable here, if I remember correctly.

bgates said...

There's no reasonable support for this conclusion. First you have to prove this single message is appropriately generalizable to women rather than the specific subject, plus you would have to prove women are discriminated against in disparagement by proving no messages disparaging men exist.

Neither one of these elements has any chance of being true.


Indeed, it's bizarre to think this message is appropriately generalizable at all, and even more bizarre to think that the appropriate generalization is women rather than women who act like this or even people in general - how in the current year can you assume this young man would only ever be in a relationship with a woman?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Mabye. Sometimes you have to be cruel to get through to a person who just refuses to take NO for an answer. Perhaps he had already exhausted all of his other options.

If he is limiting his dating options to rational, emotionally stable, no drama women....I don't see a downside.


Right, because a juvenile stunt like correcting her grammar and then using social media to humiliate her is super rational and emotionally stable and no drama. For fucks' sake, DBQ.

And more on topic, I agree with those who point out that Twitter is not a university facility.

Birkel said...

Who cares if he was mean? The only appropriate group of people who should care are those that know him, personally, and can educate him through social probation.

Seriously, the sort of people who think it's their business to police the insensitive things others say in some far flung place are the crazy ones here. If it were a crime, then the state has a say.

Meanwhile, Leftists think tweeting abrasively about the press is somehow violative of the First Amendment. But here comes a university abridging the freedoms every human has and somehow a discussion about whether this guy is a jerk is important?

Just fucking stop yourselves from caring about the behavior of a private citizen, already. Or watch your big fucking wall sized TV and get your two minute hate on.

DanTheMan said...

>>The tweet was very high profile (because it was so widely shared in social media), and so the inclusion of Nick Lutz in the student body sent a message to all students that women are to be disparaged and mocked.

Yes, please. Let's make that the standard.

Therefore, the inclusion of any professor on campus who makes demeaning statements about men in general, frat boys or Trump creates the same actionable cause for removal.

gregq said...

Laslo Spatula said...
She may indeed be crazy, or just high-strung and in love (splitting a woman's hairs, yes).

But his desire to publicly humiliate her to the world strikes me as what the French call 'a dick move'.

Blogger I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
Right, because a juvenile stunt like correcting her grammar and then using social media to humiliate her is super rational and emotionally stable and no drama. For fucks' sake, DBQ.


You are both wrong. She was a dick by inflicting the letter on him. She did not deserve a "rational response", she left the land of rationality when she refused to take "leave me alone" for an answer.

gregq said...

Blogger DanTheMan said...
>>The tweet was very high profile (because it was so widely shared in social media), and so the inclusion of Nick Lutz in the student body sent a message to all students that women are to be disparaged and mocked.

Yes, please. Let's make that the standard.

Therefore, the inclusion of any professor on campus who makes demeaning statements about men in general, frat boys or Trump creates the same actionable cause for removal.


Not just "actionable cause for removal", but "actionable cause for lawsuit against the University if it doesn't remove".

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But his desire to publicly humiliate her to the world strikes me as what the French call 'a dick move'.

Maybe.

BUT...sometimes you have to be a dick to make someone just go away, leave you alone, stop texting you, stop calling, don't follow you, stop leaving notes for you to read, stop calling at your place of work, refusing to take NO for an answer.

What part of no...No....NO.....and Hell NO didn't she understand.

The bigger dick move would be to beat the ever lovin' tar out of her. His humiliation tactic was better.

n.n said...

He essentially set up a a publicly accessible mail server a la "Water Closet", with a password set to "password" or some other inclusive scheme.

Laslo Spatula said...

Spending the time and concentration to 'grade the letter' strikes me as a crazy chick move in itself.

They are both acting like crazy chicks, just one of them has a cock.

Cruelty just doesn't come out of nowhere; nor does crazy.

He probably loved treating her cruelly in the past, and she probably thought the intention paid resembled love.

Her acceptance of his poor treatment inevitably turned him off.

The Masochist was too predictable to the Sadist for it to last. Smothering.

I bet she didn't like anal sex but did it with him because that was what HE wanted. Sadly, he probably did not ass-fuck her with love.

Then there was the thing with the mashed potatoes and vegetables.

He doesn't like his mashed potatoes and vegetables to touch.

What the fuck do I have to do to get you to remember that I don't like my mashed potatoes and vegetables to touch?

My fucking mashed potatoes are touching my fucking vegetables.

As for her: I think she has a mole on her inner thigh that she feels self-concious about.

I am Laslo.



Darrell said...

When the zombie apocalypse comes, Title IX directors are going to be my primary source of long pork.

Nah. No brains.

Infinite Monkeys said...

It sounds like he should apologize to her, and then both of them should move on with their lives.

He was trying to by ignoring her, she wouldn't let him. He should see about getting her charged with stalking.

Jupiter said...

"The tweet was very high profile (because it was so widely shared in social media), and so the inclusion of Nick Lutz in the student body sent a message to all students that women are to be disparaged and mocked."

So your theory is that he is culpable because a lot of people thought the joke was funny?

Michael K said...

"This is the only way I can GET TO YOU. I know you don't want anything to do with me."

This is stalking, as far as I can see.

One way to discourage a stalker might be to publicly expose the behavior.

His "grading her paper" seems a less angry and more "please go away" gesture.

Renee said...

Reading the reply tweet from February it seems the media started to 'report' this viral tweet. He was giving the media to republish this letter.

Why was the media interested in this letter???

He was a jerk to post it, but again he didn't identify her to the public even though all of their acquaintances would have know about it.

MadisonMan said...

I will point out that this is a Title IX bureaucrat doing what they do best: Expanding the scope of their duties so they can keep working, and maybe even hire an assistant.

I hope the Man sues the University and is awarded a lot.

google is evil said...

Sometimes Althouse says things that completely exemplify why people hate lawyers. "First Amendment problem..." Someone needs to tell the women to grow up and get over it. Lawyers ruin everything, everything!

Zach said...

Old and busted: In loco parentis

New hotness: In loco stalker

Zach said...

This is one reason why I get my hackles up when people start talking about a University's "community."

The college years are an important time in people's life, but it's still a commercial arrangement. The idea that it's the University's job to police students' interactions with each other, or even worse with the outside world, can be quite sinister in practice.

If the student pays his tuition, maintains good academic standing, and doesn't get convicted of any crimes, what business is it of theirs if he's a bit of a jerk on Twitter? Lots of people are jerks on Twitter. It's practically why the site exists.

Zach said...

^^^ people's lives. Please no amusing red pen stunts. Title IX is watching you!

Rob McLean said...

Case dismissed: https://twitter.com/NickLutz12/status/888059583834533888