The Harvard Crimson reports. (Harvard Crimson).
Comaroff is accused of "unwanted touching, verbal sexual harassment, and professional retaliation."
The initial letter posed a series of sharp questions about sanctions levied against Comaroff, who it described as “an excellent colleague, advisor and committed university citizen.” But professors began to pull their support for the letter after a federal lawsuit filed against Harvard on Tuesday detailed years of sexual harassment allegations against Comaroff — some of which had been reported previously.
Among those who did not retract were Harvard Law School professors David W. Kennedy, Randall L. Kennedy, and Duncan Kennedy. I think you can extrapolate their reasons if you read the retraction letter:
"Our concerns were transparency, process and university procedures, which go beyond the merits of any individual case.... We failed to appreciate the impact that this would have on our students, and we were lacking full information about the case. We are committed to all students experiencing Harvard as a safe and equitable institution for teaching and learning.”
What happened to the concerns for "transparency, process and university procedures, which go beyond the merits of any individual case"?! They openly proclaim that their interest in sound procedure for the individual should be subordinated to the emotional state of the larger group... but only when the group speaks in a loud enough voice. How did they "fail[] to appreciate the impact on... students"? It seems more likely that the professors didn't believe there would be an outcry that would make them so uncomfortable.
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Three of the four who did not retract are named Kennedy? Shades of Jack boinking Marilyn Monroe. Shades of Teddy and Chris Dodd and their infamous “waitress sandwich.”
What was that quote about trusting the first thousand name in the phone book over the Harvard faculty?
Was the reason for their non-retraction after the allegation of sexual harassment because they are highly logical law professors, or because they are all named Kennedy?
A question for Professor A: how do you feel about the recent changes in academia? Would you be comfortable in today's climate?
Salem isn't far from Cambridge.
Yeah, I wondered about that myself.
Do you have to be named Kennedy to teach at Harvard Law? Or to be some kind of weirdo conservative outlier? Monty Python's Australian philosophy department: it would make things easier if we were all named Bruce.
Duncan Kennedy and Lawrence Tribe were my two favorite professors at HLS.
"were Harvard Law School professors David W. Kennedy, Randall L. Kennedy, and Duncan Kennedy"
along with Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy"
Hmmm, is there a pattern emerging concerning females claiming abuse?
As I was reading this, the term "Summer Soldier" came to mind. I don't know who these Kennedys are, but the others are cowards. Which, sadly, is something we see far too much of today. Few are willing to stand up for principle when it means facing the mob. Which is at least in part why the mob refuses to believe there is such a thing as standing up for principle.
Randall Kennedy wrote a book titled "N****r: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word" (but he did not use the asterisk!!!) - clearly he should be cancelled and his opinion disregarded.
Does it change your opinion if you learn that he is African-American?
Does it then affect your decision to learn that the book "writes fully of the word, neither condemning its every use nor fantasizing that it can ever become solely a means of empowerment?"
Should any of this matter?
I liked the language in the Federal Law Suit:
This is a case about Harvard’s decade-long failure to protect students from sexual
abuse and career-ending retaliation. Harvard Anthropology Professor John Comaroff1
is a renowned scholar and a gatekeeper in his field. For years, he has used that power and his perch at Harvard to exploit aspiring scholars: he kissed and groped students without their consent, made unwelcome sexual advances, and threatened to sabotage students’ careers if they complained.
A dirty ol' man PERCHED at Harvard, swooping down and harrasing young chicks.
This is my brother Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl.
Sounds like Harvard only hires professors from Rock Ridge.
Forget it. They are Harvard professors. Intellectual consistency isn't their strong-suit.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
--- Groucho Marx
My analysis: After careful consideration of what might happen to them, the colleagues that had signed the letter decided to retract it before they became the targets of the hard core lefties, even if the allegations do prove to be false. The left no longer goes by the adage of innocent until proven guilty. These professors must have been concerned that they would become enough of a target as to destroy their careers no matter their standing and accomplishments. The left’s cancel culture practices are a cancer in today’s world. I wish a pox on those that use those tactics in that it blows up in their faces and destroys them instead of their targets…
“ A question for Professor A: how do you feel about the recent changes in academia? Would you be comfortable in today's climate?”
I was never comfortable.
As Dan Rather so profoundly stated: "Courage." (Snort)
34 weasels, 3 Kennedys and...somebody else.
And only 38 members of the Harvard faculty who had the guts to stand up for basic due process for a colleague. People with all kinds of power and status, cowed by the mewling mob.
As a large orange man once said: "Sad."
It's Too Bad for the Professor Comarof that he is a Professor, instead of a New Yorker
(a New Yorker of Color, i mean)
Because; if he was a New Yorker, and did something like this:
NYC man allegedly tries to rape woman in broad daylight on subway train
Then, the only question would be; Why did this man flee? It's not like the DA would have charged him with a crime (and, Certainly wouldn't have imposed a cash bail)
But, he's a Professor, and That Means; HE has to follow the rules
A bunch of crowd pleasers blowin in the wind.
Whenever I hear any mention of the Harvard faculty, or any subset thereof, I'm reminded to Buckley's remark (which is relevant more today than when he said it),
“I would sooner be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand members of the faculty of Harvard.”
"They openly proclaim that their interest in sound procedure for the individual should be subordinated to the emotional state of the larger group"
Right. They are progressives.
"... but only when the group speaks in a loud enough voice."
Only when an approved group speaks in a loud enough voice.
"It seems more likely that the professors didn't believe there would be an outcry that would make them so uncomfortable."
Right. They are progs. They want to preserve their own positive emotional state as well. So it's a two-fer: comfort the correct loud group, while comforting your own self-regard. That's the right prog procedure.
I pay close attention to The Crimson these days, and I commented on the 38 when the news first came out about their letter. The 34 retractors are a disgrace. I stick by the comment I made to the Crimson's first report on them. It appears the retractors now buy into Dean Gay's ludicrous concerns about the "signals" the case sends to the poor, dear, distressed and always angry pampered children of Harvard. Here is my original comment on this (sadly, my last sentence was too hopeful, for now:
It is of course impossible to know whether Dean Gay is right or wrong, telling the truth or lying, etc. I have no case for the defense or these faculty 38 at all. However, this does seem to show why the entire, secretive, anti-due process kangaroo court degeneration of open and publicly accessible procedure is so destructive. Moreover, the end of this article suggests the Dean's concern is not about the due process rights of the accused at all, but instead about the "signals" the case sends to the community, in particular those who might want to lodge similarly anonymous charges against someone in the future. All this is the abusive black hole many accused students have been thrown into in recent years. It was always foolish to think kangaroo court justice could be confined to that lowly class. Perhaps faculty will do more about it once they see they can be its victims also.
Comaroff, J. & Comaroff J. (1991). Of Revelation and Revolution Volume 1: Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South Africa. Illinois, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Professor Comaroff is leftwing and Jewish. His book on Christiainty should be fascinating.
Hell of a thing for a professor to admit: "we were lacking full information about the case" , but we went ahead and made a big noise in opposition. Don"t let the facts get in the way. First thing they teach in law school?
Jon Burack @ 2:53: "...All this is the abusive black hole many accused students have been thrown into in recent years. It was always foolish to think kangaroo court justice could be confined to that lowly class..."
Bingo. Secret due process is an oxymoron. And no, I'm not buying the hand-wringing concern that an open proceeding would expose the complainant to renewed trauma. Sorry: you want to invoke the public (via your institution) to act on your complaint, your are partnering with the public and your complaint becomes public property.
I'm old enough to remember when 88 Duke academicals denounced the lacrosse team over a false rape accusation, demanding zero due process, which is 50 more than Harvard could muster to defend due process. Or 84 more than the number who still defend due process. Looks like due process is losing this culture war in the academy.
I say bring out the gibbet, the guillotine, the stocks, the lash, and let's have some real fun with cruel and unusual punishment, too. Or maybe, just maybe, not.
Due process needs a renaissance, a revival, a rebirth. Otherwise, we may end up with university lamp poles decorated with the accused, innocent and guilty alike, until reason prevails once again.
First they came for the Harvard Professors, and I said nothing, because I was not a Harvard Professor.
tommyesq
All I know is that I can't read that book out loud anymore.
Have to cancel that story time at the public library now.
Behind every Title IX case are one or more complainants who made the difficult choice to come forward,” she wrote. “We should ask ourselves—perhaps especially the tenured faculty—what signal our reactions to the outcomes of these processes may send to our community, and particularly to those making that difficult choice of whether or not to come forward.”
what gobbledegook! Harvard needs to create a chairman for clear and concise writing.
Joe Smith said...
This is my brother Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl.
Sounds like Harvard only hires professors from Rock Ridge.
===========================================
Hyannisport - if they were from Rock Ridge, they would all be Johnsons…
"For years, he has used that power and his perch at Harvard to exploit aspiring scholars: he kissed and groped students without their consent, made unwelcome sexual advances, and threatened to sabotage students’ careers if they complained."
I find myself sympatico with Woopie Goldberg. I have found an action which is not 'Rape Rape.' If true however, it deserves condemnation from all. And all reasonable punishment. Good acts, particularly academic ones, do not balance sin. Although if Issac Newton had groped a coed I would not throw away my copy of the Principia. I would just let poor Issac do experiments off campus after his six months were done.
The woke have crimes per se, and if somebody is accused of one of them, it's dangerous to defend him unless you're retired.
Letters of support are becoming death knell, on the sorrowful way to cancellation.
“Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”
Matthew 26:34
I don't know about the others, but I recall Duncan Kennedy is a far left proponent of something called (if I remember correctly) Critical Legal Studies. But maybe what was "far left" 30 years ago is now more to the right, given where law schools have been going.
So there are 34 Harvard professors who have self-identified as fools, either when they wrote their first letter, or when they wrote the second one. Or maybe both. When I was a student at Harvard the faculty did a better job of hiding its foolishness. Or at least not admitting it.
'Hyannisport - if they were from Rock Ridge, they would all be Johnsons…'
At least somebody got the joke : )
When do they retract the retraction?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा