Summer solstice open thread

Bird Dog's picture

Summer solstice begins tomorrow at 3:58AM PST. In my neck of the woods, sunrise is at 5:12am and sunset is 9:14pm, getting light around 4:30am and getting dark by around 10:00pm. I love this time of year.

Moderate Islamists? If less-brutal-than-militant-Islamists qualifies one as a "moderate", well, whatever. Since there is no comments section, the NYT is continuing its unofficial policy of desiring conversations on race and stonewalling conversations on the RTMNBN.

The Tunisian Islamists appear to be the most moderate, but we'll see how it goes when they form a new government. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood talked moderate but did not govern so, and neither is Erdogan in Turkey. Are there moderates of any influence in Syria? The Sham legion self-identifies as moderate and has said it separated from the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. What makes it moderate? The link doesn't say. It is closely aligned with the Commission for the Protection of Civilians (CPC), which has claimed to fight alongside al Qaeda. Are there moderate Islamists in Libya? Can't say. Maybe the NYT can form an Islamist search party and provide some real reporting on the subject.

Reform Islam? Raymond Ibrahim cautions that "reform" may well mean a closer reading of the Koran and Hadiths, just as the Protestantreformation entailed a closer reading of the New Testament, which could be more problematic than beneficial. Does Ibrahim have a bias on the subject? Probably. According to Rushdie, the time was right for a reformation nine years ago. I'm still waiting. Rushdie has a bias, too, such as avoiding an Iranian death sentence.

Leaning toward Rand Paul on this. By sending military "advisors" to assist the Iraqi government, we are taking sides in this civil war. I think it's a bad idea. We shouldn't help this government while al Maliki--the one who primarily caused this mess--remains in leadership, and this administration should not be afraid to say so. Also, we shouldn't be helping Iran by helping al Maliki. Link.

Re-partition Syria and Iraq. Jeffrey Goldberg has one example which, thanks to al Maliki's misrule, may become reality.


Daniel Hannan has a similar but less detailed version.



Criminal allegations against Scott Walker. What the Journal-Sentinel doesn't mention until the 16th paragraph is that a federal judge killed the investigation on First Amendment grounds. A useful primer here. This has all the odeur of a political vendetta (I have no idea if odeur is a real word, it just sounds right).

Those IRS emails the dog ate? Not the "official record". Except they are.

George Will and campus sexual assault. Per Jacobson, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch canceled his column because "Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier." But, if a young woman reports a sexual assault to the authorities but the prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute, and if the college still suspends the male student while denying his due process rights, does that not confer extra or privileged rights to the "victim"? If a male and female are both drunk and have consensual sex, and if the male is later suspended and is denied due process, does that not confer extra or privileged rights to the "victim"? Here is a real-world example. The male student's suspension was reversed but is not allowed to graduate. Some justice.

Will's article is here is the numbers from the Ohio State example here. Over four years, there were an estimated 817 sexual assaults, and there are just over 28,000 women who attend the Columbus campus, which means that the incident rate is 2.9% while a coed is in college, not 20% reported by the Obama administration. FIRE still has issues with the Department of Education.

Update 1: On George Will, after looking at various other sources, I no longer accept his 2.9% figure. As for the "one in five" claim by this administration, verdict pending. The "privileged status" claim by Will, in cases where males are not afforded proper due process, speaks for itself.

Update 2: Conor Friedersdorf has a more detailed reaction to Will's piece and a reaction to the reaction by the Left. If the Left has to mischaracterize Will to make a point, then it wasn't a very good point in the first place. And Will could have made his point with better numbers and better clarity.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How Very Appropriate

M Scott Eiland's picture

Michelle Wie--who chose to be supportive of 11 yr old Lucy Li rather than engage in handwringing or outright bashing regarding her presence in the US Women's Open as far too many other figures in golf were--won that tournament today, her first major. Congratulations, Ms. Wie--I suspect in a few years that Ms. Li will be a major obstacle to your efforts to win more. :-)

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

It was a long time coming for Wie...

Bird Dog's picture

...after getting metophorically snakebit on previous occasions.

And Lucy Li earned her place on the merits by winning a sectional qualifier.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

That's What Made Me Angry About The Reaction

M Scott Eiland's picture

It was bad enough ten years ago when Vijay Singh threw a hissy fit over Annika Sorenstam being let into a men's tournament with a sponsor's exemption (news flash, Vijay--sponsors pay the f***ing bills, and part of the bargain is they get to put people in tournaments with exemptions that they want there. They wanted her there. STFU.). It is completely inexcusable when the objections are to someone who actually *won* a tournament that qualified them to be in the Open.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

"For Conspicuous Gallantry And Intrepidity. . ."

M Scott Eiland's picture

The image of a soldier throwing himself on a live grenade to save those around him is a powerful one--they even borrowed it (as a test with a dud grenade) for the first Captain America movie to portray Steve Rogers' inherent heroism even before he was enhanced in a way that the audience would instantly understand:

Of course, the story usually has a bittersweet ending at best, as the cost of saving the other soldiers is the life of an extraordinarily brave member of our armed forces. Lance Corporal William Kyle Carpenter apparently hadn't read that script, as he survived and was well enough to receive the Medal of Honor on Thursday, three and a half years after the grenade blast. An amazing story, and as usual for such awards the official citation is riveting:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an Automatic Rifleman with Company F, 2d Battalion, 9th Marines, Regimental Combat Team 1, 1st Marine Division (Forward), I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM on 21 November 2010. Lance Corporal Carpenter was a member of a platoon-sized coalition force, comprised of two reinforced Marine rifle squads partnered with an Afghan National Army squad. The platoon had established Patrol Base Dakota two days earlier in a small village in the Marjah District in order to disrupt enemy activity and provide security for the local Afghan population. Lance Corporal Carpenter and a fellow Marine were manning a rooftop security position on the perimeter of Patrol Base Dakota when the enemy initiated a daylight attack with hand grenades, one of which landed inside their sandbagged position. Without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own safety, Lance Corporal Carpenter moved toward the grenade in an attempt to shield his fellow Marine from the deadly blast. When the grenade detonated, his body absorbed the brunt of the blast, severely wounding him, but saving the life of his fellow Marine. By his undaunted courage, bold fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of almost certain death, Lance Corporal Carpenter reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Memo To IRS Commissioner John "Skeletor" Koskinen

M Scott Eiland's picture


. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

This is going to be fun

brutusettu's picture

if the emails are recovered and they say something along the lines of:



"We know there's a strong likelihood of a more than just significantly higher % of "Tea Party" groups being grifting machines intent on being primarily a political entity, so well just ask some of them to fill out paper work to get the ball rolling at trying to maybe catch some of the people obviously and opening flouting campaign contribution disclosure and tax deduction law."

"We're Allowed To Ignore The Law Because We Have A Good Reason"

M Scott Eiland's picture

I remember Democrats totally bought that as the reason behind Iran-Contra, so Commissioner Azog/Skeletor should *totally* cite it as an excuse for contempt for the law.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Pro Tip:

brutusettu's picture

Citing a law that deals with work related stuff doesn't not impact purely personal emails.

----So Skeletor made a watered down O'doul's version of Scalia's 65% alcohol by volume Scalia Armageddon brew quotes.




------Also there's this minor technical issue that we don't know what is in the emails, even so, it's not like they secretly sold weapons to a Muslim theocracy and then used that $ to fund traitors to murder people in Central America.



Captain Ed doesn't really get my blood boiling with

"(People that named their tax free groups after obvious tax cheats were forced to correspond with the IRS111  Emails were lost!! Possibly erased.  Spending $ on data storage to sometimes save purely personal emails is important because some people that followed the MO of tax cheats had to fill out some forms and answer questions)."



One more time, with feeling.

  • The law, until cited somewhere else, doesn't appear require personal emails to be saved.  And the email system doesn't seem to require it to be onlyused for work related stuff.
  • Can anyone think of a reason why someone would delete all emails if their personal emails were going to be searched?????




brutusettu's picture

From Ed Morrissey (italics his, bold me)

The claim that the IRS recycles its backup tapes every six months is equally ludicrous. The federal government has more strict expectations for publicly held corporations. Sarbanes-Oxley regulations passed more than a decade ago specifically require retention of email data for five years, and make the kind of destruction claimed by the IRS in this instance a crime punishable by 20 years in prison.

"five years" appears once in the cited source and doesn't appear to be related

"5 years" appears  4 times and only one seems pertinent 



‘‘§ 1520. Destruction of corporate audit records
‘‘(a)(1) Any accountant who conducts an audit of an issuer
of securities to which section 10A(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j–1(a)) applies, shall maintain all audit
or review workpapers for a period of 5 years from the end of
the fiscal period in which the audit or review was concluded.

"20 years" appears 3 times and not one of them says the punishment is 20 years, but that the punishment shall not exceed 20 years.  Which is a small thing, but phrasing it the way Ed does make it sound more scary.


so far, from looking quickly through what it looks like Captain Ed was citing, it doesn't appear that every email needs to saved. Just work related stuff.  Which is what the Skeletor super villain also seemed to state.




Ed will need some specific and sourced quotes to back up the claim I bolded in the top quote, at least before I take talk show host Captain Ed seriously as a Sarbanes-Oxley expert.


M Scott Eiland's picture

I have had occasion to make several informal bets on the World Cup so far, as part of a sidegame in a computer game I play (winning generates useful resources). I bet on England twice, Italy, and Germany, along with the obligatory jingoistic bet on the US team. So far, I've lost both bets on England, the one on Italy, and Germany is currently tied with Ghana late in their game, so the only bet I've won so far is the one where I really didn't expect to. Anyone have a team they want to lose? I can bet on them for you.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I like the manager for Mexico

brutusettu's picture

Go with Croatia over Mexico.



What Goes Around, Comes Around

M Scott Eiland's picture

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to HRC here--given that she was apparently doing what any competent and ethical defense attorney would have done at the time, albeit with some unfortunate pride in it well after the fact--if I didn't know full well that a male Republican presidential candidate who had a similar resume item (and similar documentary evidence putting him in a bad light regarding it) from the same period would be savaged as another figure in the "war against women." So HRC can reap what she's helped to sow--or we can watch liberal feminists go through another round of "why the rules don't apply to anyone named Clinton" to get her off the hook, not to mention libraries trying to suppress inconvenient documents.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Nothing is Being Hidden...Full Case File On Line Here....


...Ms. Rodham's Signature on all them motions and pleadings.


Unfortunately, I think this has legs...


Strong running legs and she may well be knocked out over this.


I will note having listened to the full tapes and read the case file this evening, that there are several facts that your linked article has artfully left out...she was asked by a Prosecutor, not just a friend, to take the case...she felt in the fullness of friendship and this being almost her first case, newly arrived in Arkansas, she felt obliged to take it on.


She never knew that Mr. Taylor was guilty, the Judge specifically excluded her from the Factual Basis inquiry so that she would not be contaminated in her defense role should the plea not be accepted.


Was the 12 year old girl a back woods tramp as she now alleges that HR made her out to be? The request for Psychiatric Exam had a basis in fact, and there were several things in Mr. Taylor's favor. This was all standard procedure at the time.


I will further object to the article's and everyone's insistence that HR defended a Child Rapist...we do not know this to be true, and cannot know it to be true now with any degree of certainty.


An attorney's first case is always a little is a shame that this was her's, (none of us ever forget our first case (s)).



Listened to the tape


Based on the way the article described it, I thought she was going to sound boastful or flippant,   but it wasn't like that.


What was surprising to me was the southern accent and diction. 

I See Now Scott's Problem With the Library's Response...


...however I do not know if the gift of these papers and recordings had any restrictions on their desimination...such as is normal, during any living person's life, for example.


I think the library may have messed up...but with the toothpaste out of the was never going to be put back.


Best Wishes, Traveller

That does look bad


As usual, the appearance of a cover-up is going to turn into the main story.


If the library had real concerns they should have found someone on the staff who wasn't a Clinton donor to write the letter.

There is Something Really Interesting Here, Re HR & Children


...for the heck of it, I looked at HRC's Wiki pages, for early life...this period under discussion.


There is something really striking and relevant to the Thompson case, to wit:


Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[49] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[50] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that instead courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[51] The article became frequently cited in the field.[52]


And again:


Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977[74] and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.[75] The latter continued her argument that children's legal competence depended upon their age and other circumstances and that in serious medical rights cases, judicial intervention was sometimes warranted.[51]


There is more than a touch in these positions that could lead HRC to see the child victim as not a victim but at least as partially competent on almost an adult sliding scale.


This view has now been discarded in the United States, had it's advocates in the 70's and 80's.


Best Wishes, Traveller



Advocates, yes.


Mostly pedophiles. The 70s and the tail end of the sexual revolution is starting to look really ugly from this vantage point. Polanski, Saville, the whole lot of filthy little scumbags.

There will never be


An independent Kurdistan - sadly.


The Turks and Iranians would never allow it to exist.

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise - B. Franklin

Or the Iraqis for that matter, as we


keep pointing out.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Jeffrey Goldberg's map

Jay C's picture

Well, as he puts it:


When we were preparing the map that accompanied the article, we erred on the side of whimsy, and exaggeration. However, in looking it over today, it doesn’t seem entirely fanciful.

Not "entirely" - though of the (by my count) 17 or 18 border changes (depending on whether splitting Somalia counts as one or two), I can think of at least 8*- not even counting Iraq/Syria that I think would be unlikely to happen without a prolonged and bloody war: which would probably leave the new "nations" even more-shattered and poorer than they might already be, not to mention seriously disrupting the world's oil supplies; probably for decades. They did get one right ("New Sudan") - though again, at a huge cost in lives. The "Sykes-Picot borders" may have caused problems which the various actors in the region, over the years, have typically tried to solve at gunpoint, but, AFAICT The Atlantic's "whimsical" map is just a modern - and a bit more sophisticated - update of the same thing.


* Eritrea

  "Greater Yemen"

  Sinai "Bedouin Zone"

  "Greater Jordan"

  Arabia/"Holy Hijaz"

  and the three ethno-state "adjustments"  to "Persia"/Iran


BUT: I do think they're right about Somaliland and Puntland - last I read, those are the only Somali-populated regions with anything like functioning governments and economies that aren't reliant on piracy and warlordism: unless I'm missing something, it would seem that having at least two new "rational" countries in the Horn of Africa would be an improvement.

It Wasn't A Fluke

M Scott Eiland's picture

11 year old Lucy Li cards her second consecutive 78 at US Women's Open, misses cut. Appropriately, Michelle Wie--who went through a bit of this at a somewhat older age about a decade ago--leads the field after thirty-six holes at -4. Vijay Singh could not be reached for comment.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

How have you not heard the George Will numbers debunked?


You should diversify your news sources, this was a simple stat error on Will's part and shown to be so in many places.

Show me your work

Bird Dog's picture


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Will made several elementary errors, which were pointed out


on Talking Points Memo, The Atlantic, and Wired. 


This post has got most of em in one place

Show your own work, BD


Here's the basis of these numbers.  Maybe you can forward them along to George Will.  Getting really irritated with this sort of response:  you make a snide allegation, ask someone to prove their point - evidence is furnished - and it's just more of same.

When a person makes a claim,

Bird Dog's picture

it's on that person to back it up. That's how it should work.

As for the CSA study, there is enough questions on methodology to question the results. At best, verdict pending.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

.....George Will didn't even really back it up.

brutusettu's picture


The 12% statistic applies to the reporting of rapes of college women to law enforcement (source), not sexual assaults to college authorities. While George complains about the broadness of the sexual assault definition later on in his rant, the fact is, the 12% statistic can’t be applied to all sexual assaults.

That's from one of Jordan's links.


"(Fracking) statistics?  How do they work." George Will

I provided a separate corroborating study from CDC.


Totally different study

  • Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.  
  • Most female victims of completed rape (79.6%) experienced their first rape before the age of 25; 42.2% experienced their first completed rape before the age of 18 years.  

Combined, those two data points suggest a pronounced concentration of sexual violence victimization of women during the high school & college years. If you assume a young woman leaving home for the first time, mixing unchaperoned with young men and women, experimenting with sex, alcohol & drugs possibly for the first time is uniquely vulnerable to sex assault, rape, stalking, etc., which seems a reasonable assumption, then this study is entirely in line with the 20% statistic.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

The Last Category Is Controversial

M Scott Eiland's picture

Particularly with recent developments as to the level of proof required. You don't need "preponderance of the evidence" standards to find someone guilty of rape if the woman was clearly unconscious or otherwise unresponsive; clearly, the proponents here have other targets in mind.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

19% of college-aged women experienced attempted or


completed sexual assault since entering college, according to a separate and highly regarded sexual violence survey

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Here's the problem


I believe the respondents, I believe the number,  and I believe there's a big problem.    However,  given that college starts at age 18,  one could also guess that the following isn't far off:


"19% of voting-aged women experienced attempted or completed sexual assault since voting for the first time"


although the number might be even higher - hard to tell without stats for women 18-21 who aren't in college.   Or changing the other half:


"19% of college-aged women experienced respiratory problems since entering college".


The mistake in the way people are using the survey is the unstated assumption that the assaults are caused by the college experience,  and that otherwise women would be in some kind of rape free environment.  The survey itself notes that many of the incidents involved family.  If the victim stayed at home there'd be even more of that.


So the statistics are difficult to nail down. That does not


in any way authorize conservative jackasses to start braying about the privileged status of sexual assault victims, as far as I can tell.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

It Is. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .if the definitions for doing so are stretched to the point where *I* could claim to be a multiple victim of sexual assault, and where said "sexual assaults" are now possible grounds for expulsion if a campus kangaroo court can be convinced by a preponderance of evidence that the incident occurred. I'm not inclined to trust any disciplinary body that would react to the term "microaggression" with anything other than harsh mockery.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

IF, being the operative word


which in your comment was followed by precisely zero evidence that your hypothetical fancy holds in reality. 


From the stats we've got 20% assault charges comprised of 12% straight up rape, leaving the remaining 8% to be sexual assaults not involving penetration. Does 2 out of 5 sound unreasonable? Not to me. 


Now you wanna imagine that Will is exonerated by pointing to some borderline cases, ignoring that he radically misread the stats and claimed that "seeking privilege" was a major factor behind a high % of assault charges.


My suggestion is to stop imagining a distant possible world in which Will had a point and focus on the actual world where he's already been shown to be massively mistaken.

Other Than Multiple Prior Discussions Here. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .and general familiarity with how universities have abused their power over students in the name of political correctness in the last twenty five years in spite of the efforts of F.I.R.E. to prevent it, of course. George Will wasn't making his comments in a vacuum, and the unhinged reaction of the left to them in places that are not the Forvm just makes his point. The Obama Administration has been meddling in a way that will encourage universities to engage in even more arbitrary justice than the state of affairs that gave us the Duke lacrosse rape fraud produced--this needs to be smacked down hard, and I quite honestly hope any schools that follow their lead get sued into oblivion over it.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

That sounds like a lot of special pleading


on top of zero evidence, at least insofar as George Will's poor excuse for statistics goes.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

No, Just Knowing The Background Of The Larger Controversy

M Scott Eiland's picture

And that George Will is 100% right about universities encouraging students to embrace their inner victim as a means of empowerment. This pathology has been going on for a long time. But hey, if George Will bashing is the game of the day, have at it! I'm moving on, since clearly the sinestrosphere ain't getting him fired any time soon.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You're not getting it


George Will was supposed to be providing *evidence* in favor of the supposed PC pathology. Instead he was repeating his assumptions about that pathology which lead him to incompetently misinterpret the evidence.


Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

The PC Pathology In Question. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .is well established, with or without the contributions of Mr. Will. Again, if bashing George Will is the entertainment of the day, have at it. It will not prevent the countermeasures against those who would subvert the basic rights of American citizens in the name of PC b*****it.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

So George Will claims the real scourge of American


campuses is not sexual assault, but a bunch of entitled drama queens claiming victim status and ruining lives with trumped up charges of date rape. His own numbers show that he has massively undercounted actual university sex crimes. He counts 2.9%, whereas the best available numbers are closer to 20%. It is, in other words, an actual scourge, and Mr. Will blithely and smugly ignores it in order to talk about a different and, he claims, far more important scourge for which he provides no evidence. 


Now you are asking us to ignore the fact that George Will ignores the evidence, assuring us that, evidence or not, his misguided hobbyhorse is "well established." But the "well established" part is exactly what's at issue here. After all, if there is in fact an honest to god scourge of sexual abuse on campuses, it becomes harder to castigate university officials for getting itchy trigger fingers. After after all, the parents of fraternity-groped daughters tend to go headhunting, some of them with high-powered attorneys, and anyone with a neck is well-advised to either grab a torch and point the way to the nearest castle, or start penciling a dotted line between the 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae. All of which is to say that it matters quite a bit whether we're talking about a "scourge" of scapegoating or merely a possible overreaction to the fact that colleges do indeed appear to be date rape free-for-alls.


Maybe it would be more convincing on your part to admit that George Will's picture of university life is exactly the wrong starting point for any adult conversation about this issue, and that any discussion of false accusations and noble victimhood needs to take place in a context where one fifth of all college-aged women - or, put another way, 3-5 students out of every course you ever took - fall victim to some kind of sexual abuse. But then that's a substantially harder row to hoe.


Heck even Bird Dog, who rarely concedes a point of fact no matter how trivial, has dug under the fence of defending Will's column to gnaw on topics with more factual meat on the bone.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Except That. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .as eeyn points out and you tacitly concede with a "so what if the numbers are murky? George Will is out of line!" dismissal, the numbers don't show a *campus* problem. They show that young women of college age have a problem, with the degree being somewhat in controversy. If this is indeed a new and rising problem as opposed to women being more willing these days to speak up about being mistreated at any level--and said new willingness to speak up is a good thing regardless of how some distasteful people may choose to exploit it--then it is a problem that should be resolved through the courts (criminal and civil), not organizations that have proven time and again that they can't even be trusted to handle genuine and specific campus problems without abusing their authority. Invoking the boogeyman of the angry fathers is laughable--said angry fathers are quite capable of filing lawsuits, going to the newspapers if a DA is burying a legitimate case, or taking a blunt object to the skull of the purported rapist. Announcing that the school will be going after purported student rapists with campus kangaroo courts will be more likely to produce said angry mob of fathers, joined by mothers, when they realize that their sons will be targets of opportunity for the local Nifong.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

What Blaise said. Nobody cares about corporations enforcing


sexual harassment law, so the butt-hurt against universities in particular strikes me as awfully, hm, evidence-free let's say, and almost dangerously so given how much higher the prevalence of sexual assault appears to be within the population in question.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Substitute the Workplace for the Academy


and you get the same problem domain.  The GM whistleblower who made too much noise, the anti-union organising clampdowns - are you really sure you want to go there?  What happens inside a firm, once you've swiped your access badge, is not a problem for the people who are dead-set against Political Correctness in other venues. 


No, the people who complain about Political Correctness seem grossly unwilling to extend their arguments any farther than Enemy Territory.  Today's Conservatives make no headway on campus and therefore they distrust the Academy to manage its own affairs.  The summary justice meted out in the workplace, the wholesale rollback of workers' rights, these are of no concern to them.  Of a woman's right to birth control, well, look who rides to the rhetorical rescue of those firms which voice objections to providing health care coverage.


And until I broached the topic, nobody seems to have any recollection of the exact reverse situation of long standing, where universities covered up sexual assaults.  Yes, it does go both ways.  If we are to have any justice, let those intent upon reforms smear the peanut butter to the edges of their slice of bread.  Damning the Academy in isolation, dragging out that old Water Buffalo fiasco time and again, do read the link provided and then let's talk about kangaroo courts in corporations, for universities are no less corporations and students no less bound to codes of conduct than the American worker.

Bebby Jeezus to thee we pray to save us from the Victim Class.


I have been accused of knowing a bit of Latin.  Long before the Bible as we know it was assembled, long before even the Jewish Midrash was put together, lots of Jewish sacred texts were running around, including one called Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum or Pseudo-Philo, which never made it into the compendium. There's a strange little bit from it I remember and just looked up.   

And where they did choose not to bear false witness, they have received false witness from them whom they cast out.

George Will has damned the academy by proxy for far too long.  This time he got caught out, receiving false witness from those already cast-out.  Kors and FIRE have been at this for quite some while, feted by various conservative and libertarian types.  But those folks do not hold the reins of power at even one major university.   Why is this so, do you think? 


M Scott Eiland's picture

The fact that those who object to the despicable abuse of power have not yet managed to wrest the reins of power from those who do so is not a meaningful argument against their objections. As it happens, I am also accused of knowing Latin due to professional training, and I will offer a metaphorical suggestion for the appropriate fate of said power abusers: Sic semper tyrannis! No corpses required--just complete and utter discrediting and flinging them into Outer Darkness.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

The power dynamic seems meaningful enough to me, MSE.


Why hasn't the Conservative ethos gained any more traction than it has?  Serious question.  FIRE isn't really Conservative.  Conservatives would look back to the distant past for some guiding principles and say this issue boils down to Personal Responsibility.  But that's not what we're getting.  FIRE is basically a libertarian First Amendment crew.  And let's face it, they don't have any traction, despite all the petty annoyances of the Academy, the workplace is equally fraught with problems and nobody seems to be raising libertarian First Amendment issues in Carpet Land.   Quite the opposite: if universities ever tried to pull the police state BS routinely practised in the workplace, there'd be no end of it rhetorically.


The Conservatives should be doing reasonably well in some quarters of the landscape.  They aren't because since the 1960s they've alienated themselves from every advance in human rights coming down the pike.  It was stupid - it was reactionary, which isn't Conservative.  Big difference:  a Conservative sees a contenuity in human history, certain guiding principles which ought to guide every age:  the rights of man, representative democracy, the search for truth, the rights of the individual, the long-haul stuff - in short, the stuff of the Academy.  The reactionary opposes change. 


Conservatives hate the Academy because they fear it.  Really.  The last three generations have filled Conservative bowels with watery terror and tremulous outrage.  It's a sure sign they've lost the high ground.  They aren't getting it back until they learn to accept some change.  For all their talk about a Professional Victim Class, they're the ones who are screaming most loudly about being victims.  Thing is, there's a note of truth to their complaints.  They were driven out of polite company in the 1960s and they never mended their ways.  They want a privileged class, all right - themselves:  despite their unpopularity, they want equal billing on stage and invitations to the parties with the more popular kids.  They won't get either.  They'll have to earn their way back in.  It will start when they stop their endless assbiting about how the Popular Kids are So Mean to Them.

Unfortunately what you describe as "conservative"


is considered disastrously progressive by today's American right wing. And I mean nearly all of the right wing. You can gauge just how far into Buchananland someone is by noting what decade they want to roll history back to. 


Nearly all modern conservatives consider the 1950s, before Medicare and Civil Rights and the anti-war movement, to be the paradise lost of American culture. But many also want to roll back (and in fact have rolled back) the New Deal Era laws, social insurance schemes and regulations designed to protect ordinary working people from the depredations of financial speculators. And not a few would mind rolling back to the wild west darwinian nightmare that was America in the 1890s, before consumer regulations began blunting the edge of profit motives that thought flavoring beer with strychnine or mixing arsenic with cocaine and selling it as medicine while sending men to die in stockyards and iron mines were all fine examples of entrepreneurial spirit. Then there's a significant and attractive Dixiecrat minority that pines for the antebellum days when all was right in the world and the Constitution remained virginal in its god-bothering, apartheid-enforcing purity.


A Burkean appreciation of necessary change moderated by respect for tradition is nowhere to be found. On a depressingly regular basis, Burkean conservatives are trundled up Pennsylvania Avenue and tossed up onto the pyre of doctrinaire outrage.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

It's been a while since we've seen an actual Conservative


on the political stage.  All we get are these reactionary bumpkins, absurdly proud of how little they know about things.  And they're terribly superficial... that's the reason Romney failed:  if he'd just found a better stylist....


Okay, some while back, I was living in Augusta, WI.  Tiny little town, if your great grandfather didn't take a dump in an outhouse in that county, you were a newcomer.  But I had an advantage:  my g/f had been a farm girl in that county.  So I said, "Take me down to somewhere and get me some clothes, especially a winter coat, which looks like I belong here."  Went down to Farm and Fleet and I ended up with this wonderful old flannel barn jacket and some black jeans, an old baseball hat, my old desert boots passed muster - and off I went.  The robe may not make the monk but the monk wears the robe.  Didn't make me a local and I never pretended to be one - but I didn't look like some city jamoke in my usual attire.


Romney lost because he failed the Barn Jacket Test.  He might have been an okay president, that's arguable, but he just didn't look like a man of the people. 


Today's Conservative isn't grounded.  He's upset about too much government, which is actually a Liberal complaint - he doesn't understand that, but he does understand two things which still remain true, though all else has been twisted into a gordian knot of ignorant outrage.  Individual initiative and small-r republicanism are conservative virtues.  If he doesn't like Medicare and other government initiatives, he doesn't understand a world without such safety nets.  They don't like Privileged Classes, that's okay, it's a valid complaint, truth is, I don't much like Affirmative Action either.  I think it perpetuates the race line.  But the key to grasping the failure of modern conservatism is how little they understand about the consequences of repealing all these reforms.  As you point out, nothing but grief awaits those who pine for the Good Old Days.  Their only tests for politicians are Barn Jacket Tests - and the doctrinal controversies are tearing the conservative movement apart. 

There are a lot of people who mistake personal responsibility


for a lack of responsibility. Just like there are a lot of people who fail to understand how the twenty-dollar bills in their purse or wallet are irrevocably connected to what happens on Wall St., balance of trade with China, changes in fixed-income entitlements, etc.


The world of rugged individualism is gone. Sober, little-r republican virtue in the vein of Cato the Elder is a wonderful thing, but conservatives pining for that kind of autonomy and independence are basically living in a pipe dream. Let the modern economy collapse and we can talk. Alternatively, go to space and let the pioneering spirit come back in full force.  


Until that time, the frontier is gone. Has been for generations now. Quit kidding yourselves, conservatives. And libertarians.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Republicanism is a balancing act.


Societies have rights, too.  We give them rights so the republic can protect us from each other.  It's a useful form of government but it requires civic participation.  Bad part of republicanism - unless the citizenry closely watches the government, the State can run off and abuse its powers.  But without those powers, the government can't do the necessary and often unpopular things required to keep things on track. 


Is individualism gone?  Seen from certain angles, we have more of it than ever.  I've lived in some damned old remote parts of the world, people out there aren't individualists.  On the frontier, people depend on each other in a thousand ways.  In the heart of Augusta WI, there's a fire siren to summon the volunteer fire department.   I'd say city life provides more outlets for the Rugged Individualist.  It's certainly a lonelier life.  But you can let your li'l Freak Flag Fly, that's the chief advantage of city life.  Rural life enforces its own codes of conduct. 

That's exactly the point


"George Will wasn't making his comments in a vacuum"


Look, I know about false sexual harassment charges. My father (college prof) was the recipient of one by a female student that was rescinded after he came out of the closet. It was a serious matter and stressful for my family and it turns out rather obviously based on a grudge. I don't know what would have happened with the charges had he not had the pretty good excuse of not being straight.


Everyone knows this stuff happens, but you don't get a sense of how widespread it is by listening to George Will puke out a completely biased and entirely inaccurate analysis, based mostly on his assumption that political correctness must be massively warping everything related to sex on college campuses. 


Your comment actually praises him for having made a jacka$$ of himself b/c he's too stupid and incompetent not to jump to conclusions.

The issue is venue, it seems to me, as with the military.


Two soldiers get into a scrap on base, different rules apply than if the soldier got into a scrap in an off-base bar.  Things happen on college grounds, they're handled in loco parentis.  


Conservatives can go on whining about Political Correctness for all the good it will do them.  Today's political correctness is tomorrow's status quo.  Get used to it, Conservatives.  For all your much-talking about Personal Responsibility, when people act irresponsibly and others declare that irresponsibility beyond the pale of civilised behaviour, your constant whining about Unhinged Left-isms are the surest sign of a groundswell against your actual, if not your rhetorical positions on responsibility.  


Conservatives' track record on women's rights has been abysmal over the years.  You may not have it both ways:  either women deserve more respect than they're getting, in which case yesterday's once-tolerable pawing and grabbing are no longer acceptable and at some point actionable - or they don't merit that respect, in which case George Will's eye rolling and naysaying about rape statistics are in fact the correct viewpoint.


George Will said a dumb thing.  As with all dumb things, there's no absolutely dumb thing. Every remark, no matter how stupid, has some validating aspect.  If you want to grasp at the feeble excuses George Will is now offering, well, fine.  Nobody should be obliged to have sex without consent, ever, even with people they've had sex with before.  That's my standard, if not George Will's.  Is it yours ?



I agree with your general drift but this sentence is way off in both clauses:


"Things happen on college grounds, they're handled in loco parentis."


First clause: part of the Title IX crisis going on at universities is that they are being held responsible (or are being pressured to take responsibility) for stuff that happens off campus,  and by off campus I don't mean fraternity houses and sponsored events.  We're talking about anytime the victim or the perpetrator is a student,  wherever they are, even if the event happens at their parent's or friend's house in a completely different city.


Second: You know more Latin than any of us,  and you know that there is no "parentis" for anyone over 18,  and that the whole concept of colleges being guardians of coed chastity went out around 1968.   We're in a situation where 21+ year old students have complete sexual freedom and a legal right to drink alcohol (and they should),  but if something bad happens, the lawyers and the feds go after the institution.



I chose "in loco parentis" carefully, with all that in mind.


Can alma mater, the foster mother,  enforce her rules on her own territory?  These little kangaroo courts down at the Provost's Office show in loco parentis still seems to hold sway in certain quarters.

Venue Is Indeed The Issue

M Scott Eiland's picture

And for the federal government to suggest that rape charges be adjudicated by a campus kangaroo court on "preponderance of the evidence" standards and without the accused having the wide variety of due process rights that they would have in the criminal defense system with its "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards should, IMO, mean the jobs of everyone with their fingerprints on the proposal, much less the threat to the universities that fail to comply with this gross violation of their students' rights. Rape *is* a serious business--and the bureaucratic scum pushing these standards are treating it with contempt.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

There is something very wrong here


I find myself agreeing with MSE on something. Oh not in everything but the lack of due process in a University setting. It applies to more than just sexual harassment though which I believe is a real and serious problem. University disciplinary proceedings for students tend to be applied in an arbitrary inconsistent fashion with little or nothng in the way of due process rights.

That's The Annoying Thing About This

M Scott Eiland's picture

If all of the effort that was being put into making this a university disciplinary issue was diverted to, say, hiring more law enforcement personnel tasked to dealing with this issue (prosecutors, police units specializing in sexual assault investigation, counselors), no one would be objecting to it.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

That doesn't save George Will's stupid argument.


The preponderance and severity of the evidence of what constitutes sexual assault is what's at issue here.  By narrowly limiting the scope of the argument, George Will attempted (and contemptibly failed) to make his case.  Standards are rising.  Conservatives don't like it.  I don't like kangaroo courts any more than you do yet they do operate.  The Court of Public Opinion's standards of evidence are nil and the Conservatives are now staggering out of court with a directed verdict against them. 

No, A Narrow Constituency Is Trying To Change Them. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .in an intolerable way, regardless of the merits of how Will chose to express why it is intolerable (and anyone who doesn't believe that asserted victimhood is the royal currency on the modern university campus hasn't been paying attention for the past twenty years: reacting to this plain truth with "how dare you impugn rape victims that way?" is simple deflection). Those proposing said changes need to be put down--hard, for the sake of those who will otherwise accused under those standards in campus kangaroo courts, and victims whose cases meet legitimate standards whose veracity will be tainted by the existence of the new standards. If you want to brand someone a rapist in official eyes, he (or she, should it apply) should have unhindered access to counsel and other due process, and the standard of proof should be far beyond "preponderance of the evidence." If the Powers That Be try to enforce the intolerable standard, they will find it costing them a lot of money and time in the civil courts, as their reputation is deservedly dragged through the mud even further.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Women are not a Narrow Constituency. They're a large one.


I am old enough to remember the civil rights struggle and how everyone wrestled with the notion of integration.  Everyone was concerned about perpetuation of the old race line :  the bigots because they would be explicitly forced to recognise their observance of it in the new rules - the civil rights advocates because it really wasn't integration, just a new form of segregation, this time with different rules.  It was an old debate going back to Marcus Garvey,  Frederick Douglass and George Washington Carver.  The problem is still with us: biracial children are being pulled in both directions.


Nowadays, though you may think it a narrow thing, the general consensus is changing.  Your side is losing the rhetorical argument, as it lost all the previous arguments - and for the same reason.  And all you say of the "Rape Debate" was heard then, and in the same terms.  Ditto civil rights for homosexuals.  The rhetoric never changes.  The modern university campus is where all such movements begin: young people revisiting old axioms and finding them lacking.  The young are idealistic because they have not yet been ground down by the world.  The meek shall inherit nothing.  Only those who stand up and change things will inherit the earth.  The rest of them will just go on shuffering and shmiling like good little serfs. 


It's not asserting victimhood which wins these arguments, MSE.  It's when the victim stands up and gives her tormentor a rhetorical beating, that's what wins arguments.  George Will is a pusllanimous little man who said stupid things and was beaten back with his own tools.  Lugubrious old bobo long past his sell date.  There is no royal currency.  You can't buy someone's opinion.  But there is hope for the Conservatives out there:  maybe the bow tie will make a comeback.   In the mean time, the marketing data says women's attitudes are changing.  They want respectable men.  Not men in their 70s, men who should know better.  George Will has become a shambling caricature of himself, a member of a privileged class - not merely a member but raised from childhood in academia.   Once he exhibited a bit of moral scruple. Those days are over. He should have quit years ago.

The Constituency That Is Trying To Force These Evidentiary. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .standards is a narrow one. As is the one that thinks a campus kangaroo court should be able to brand someone a sexual predator using evidence that a DA wouldn't spit on if it was on fire, which is as despicable as if the same kangaroo court was allowed to brand a sexual assault victim with a scarlet letter. For the government to try to grant such power to a university, nay, *force* them to do it, is for them to intentionally violate the constitutional rights of all those subject to such a system, using the university as a proxy--and it should mean the end of their time in public life.

Oh, and I'll let the "your side" comments up to now go, but the next one will be a yellow card, regardless of what Forvmite they are directed at. Implying that a Forvmite is in favor of sexual assault is--in addition to laughably without supporting evidence--a clear violation of "comment, not the commenter" standards.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

The rhetorical device of "privileged status" is way out of line.


It is the rhetoric of the old racists and homophobes and if present company chooses to indulge in it, they might consider that fact, for all those who use it will be lumped into the same basket

[Comment Title Edited At The Request Of Traveller]

(#320511) one is defending George Will, the conversation has moved beyond him several days ago.


If victimized women wish to beat their rapist into oblivion, you will find no objection.


However, injustice is injustice regardless of the gender of the person being unfairly harmed.


See the most outrageous case from Ohio State  this year:


(the Prosecutor) Blackburn, in one of the most detailed accounts of the incident by a public official, was seemingly the first to acknowledge the man involved was an OU student.

During the press conference, he described the event as follows:

The couple left after the bar closed Oct. 12 and began kissing while moving south on Court Street.

At approximately 3 a.m., the two stopped in front of Chase Bank, 2 S. Court St., where the male performed oral sex on the female and, in video footage of the event, digitally penetrated her.

The female was responsive, Blackburn said.

During the act, the man asked the woman if he should stop because a crowd was building behind them. She answered no.

The names of the individuals were not released Monday.

After leaving the bank, the two can be seen on video voluntarily entering the man’s Court Street apartment. They arrived just after 3:30 a.m. and left at 6:30 a.m.
The man then walked the woman home and provided her with his cell phone number.

Neither was aware their actions were videotaped until footage circulated on social media. No indictments were made for anyone who took a video.

Blackburn also confirmed an alleged assault on the man involved.

“The assault on him came from a citizen who appeared to be disgusted by that type of activity taking place in public, not because he was concerned about the safety of the female,” Blackburn said.

It was not immediately clear whether the assault would be further investigated or if the two could face misdemeanor charges in municipal court for public indecency or underage drinking.

Blackburn recommended APD not file public indecency charges because “the public embarrassment of what has gone on is more than a misdemeanor charge could be.”

APD officials could not be reached for comment as of press time.

In addition, the students might face punishment from OU.


I presume that you will favor equal punishment for the female student as the male?


But why was this called "Rape," in the first place? (or later, in the Student Newspaper, A Sexual Assault? Hun? Language matters.)


The reason, it was cell phone recorded and the woman was shamed into destroying this male student's life.



Never liked knights in armour. Always seemed a bit dystopian


a-la Mad Max.  Actual knights were some tough customers and they moved with at least a squad of infantry, often units as large as a platoon.   The stories have it all wrong.  They were the main battle tanks of their day:  expensive, tough to coordinate and even tougher to keep loyal. 


I am no knight.  I was an artillery forward observer. I delivered the mail.  I instantly changed attitudes by obliterating anything which fired on my people.  My favourite weapon was the four deuce mortar.  More ordnance and faster than anything else in the inventory.   I don't approve of White Knights on principle. 


On a personal note, I have been accused of molesting my own children, by my wife.  I was cast out of my church and my life became a living hell for the next 18 months. I will not burden this place with the details but I was found innocent and my wife was obliged to enter psychiatric care by court order.  You might say I have some first-hand experience with the justice system on this matter.  I will not be called a White Knight. 



Please Remove the WK Reference...I Get Hot Protecting Men...

(#320518) I do, though I have deafened women also against crazy false allegations.


Give the offending Post, Ohio State as a Post Title...


All of this upsets me greatly also.


Give me a Yellow Card.


I am not rational on this stuff. (though discuss it I suppose we must, because it is important)


I apologize.



I'll Make It A Formal Warning, No Yellow Card

M Scott Eiland's picture

And I'll yellow card future ones, as the reaction tends to support my original instincts that it is over the line as generally used. It's up to the others if they agree with my decision on future matters.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

OK, We Don't Need That

M Scott Eiland's picture

We have precedent that accusing a Forvmite of "white knighting" isn't a PRV per se, but it certainly brushes the edges of the "comment, not the commenter" rule and we can really do without it. That being said, we're mostly in synch on the merits here, though there's no need to focus on the complainants here--the evidentiary standards being pushed are bad in general regardless of who they are being used for or against in a campus kangaroo court.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

No, It Really Isn't

M Scott Eiland's picture

The "water buffalo" case--which I linked earlier--established that quite clearly, as well as illustrating why university kangaroo courts should be despised and harried at all opportunities. Universities are starting to poke their heads up again after being taken down hard on this crap in the nineties, and they need to be dealt with harshly again, and their patrons in the government chased from office.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Have I not condemned the Kangaroo Courts?


I used that phrase in loco parentis, choosing my words with great care and got called out for it.  If the university wishes to conduct its own tribunals, it does so at the peril of running kangaroo courts. 


George Will was wrong.  We were asked to do BD's homework and furnish the studies.  We did.  BD amended his diary to reflect those studies and good on him for doing so.  The numbers are appalling.  Far worse than might be supposed.  If men's right to due process is infringed by the university, the long track record of sexual assaults being covered up by universities is sickening.  The "privileged status" argument is deeply undermined by the facts on hand.   When star athletes' crimes such as Jameis Winston's are covered up, who has anything to say about the rights and responsibilities of those men?   Why, the very folks we're now accusing of running kangaroo courts.  Can't have it both ways. 

It Goes Both Ways

M Scott Eiland's picture

But the fact that male students have been covered up for in the past--and by law enforcement officials as well, whose job this actually is to deal with--doesn't make future ones guilty. In loco parentis is not a license to do whatever they want to students--that's why Duke paid out of the nether regions for its role in the phony rape case, and why universities will continue to get destroyed by juries if they keep pulling this crap. The public needs to hold the local authorities accountable for not pursuing rape allegations supported by good evidence, and not blame the victim when that results in a local athlete having their career abruptly ended--just as those same athletes have the right to expect the school not to try them in kangaroo courts or let their faculty engage in vigilante behavior in the absence of a resolution in the courts. The kangaroo courts will *never* be a suitable ground for resolving these matters, largely inherently, but partly because twenty-one years after the Water Buffalo incident, there are people in places of authority who think they will be allowed to get away with things that they will *not* be allowed to get away with.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I repeat myself in saying the problem is venue.


Universities should not be running anything but moot courts.  As you point out, it will become a liability issue.  There is the problem of governing authority over domiciles, in dorms especially.  Not being a lawyer, though I pay a fair bit of attention to the law, that seems to be the chief obstacle to me.  The university system hasn't evolved enough over the years.  The NCAA is proof positive it won't evolve, not without outside pressure. 

google search, not working out well enough

brutusettu's picture

Anyone know about rape allegations at work or work related events wrt being fired?

See American Apparel...(so much in the news lately!)



Dov Charney masterbates while giving interviews, and dances naked in front of female employees


I bring this up only because you asked and because with lawsuits being filed monday....I think I am going to have to close my stock positions in APP....


I am playing vulture fund here...but I sense that the danger level has become beyond the bearable.


Caution: the Hollywood Reporter Video at the bottom of the story has full frontal male CEO nudity.



This Guy Had Actually Been Sued. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .and it sounds like there was a real investigation here--and that in all cases Mr. Charney had full assistance of counsel and due process rights (for all the good that it will do him, if this holds up). Good luck regarding a student accused of rape or anything else that offends the sensibilities of a campus kangaroo court getting a hundredth of that much due process.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).


M Scott Eiland's picture

But if the government was threatening to fine or otherwise sanction businesses who failed to hold kangaroo courts without right of representation and based on a preponderance of evidence standard to adjudicate rape claims that a DA won't touch, I'd want the heads of *those* idiots, too--and a business who did that sort of thing on its own dime would probably be looking at a lot of lawsuits, possibly with punitive damages since unlike for (some) state universities there's no sovereign immunity to that sort of thing for businesses.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I'd Like Some Recognition That Men/Women are an Admixture


...of hope and regret and hope again.


....that romanticism is fun culturally and for advertising, but that it quickly wears thin and more durable emotions are required.


America and Americans are particularly childish in their inability to accept, understand and foster a healthy respect for both parties in this hodgepodge and gooey mess that is and always has been.


So no, I won't give women a break in this...they have duties also; of course they also have a right to get blindingly drunk without being sexually assaulted...but then this becomes a criminal matter...not administrative.


The University should not be forced to be the White Knight that women fail to find on their night out of binge drinking.



I'd like some recognition of that phrase in the Fourth Amendment


"secure in their persons" just might apply to the lot of women.  It's not a gooey mess.  It's a matter of respect and women aren't getting much because men don't have much - respect for women or respect for themselves, the former largely due to the latter.  More durable emotions are set in the ground of more durable concepts than romanticism.  The original romantics, Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Goethe, - and Madame de Staël, whom nobody seems to know about these days, were rebels against the status of women, acknowledging the thoughts and feelings of women emerged from minds as good as those of men. 


I always hated that word "Romantic" and what became of it over time. The early romances all ended badly:  Amadis of Gaul, Romeo and Juliet, Arthur and Guenevere, Lancelot and Morgawse and Merlin, all ancient object lessons in the consequences of the madness of desire stirred into the brew of life.  The older stories had more grit to them and the authors of the romances knew they were only reviving something much older.


Everyone should be secure in their persons, drunk or not.  Women are easily enough found, they comprise something over half the population.  Given half a chance, they're quite capable of making a good man happy - and he, her.  The perversity of previous ages have told us women want to be chased about, that unwanted advances are somehow welcome, that if only the man tries hard enough, he'll win her over.  Well it's all pernicious nonsense.  Were men as noble and generous of spirit as they think themselves to be, women would be falling all over themselves to get at such men.  There's nothing particularly mysterious about all this.  Or gooey.


Yes, standards are rising and it's high time they did.  Women are graduating from university at higher rates than men.   Women already have economic power and they are gaining more.  But until men stop treating women as inscrutable mysteries and come to terms with the systematic objectification of women, they will never evolve.  


The old tales featured White Knights rescuing women from monsters.  Men might look at those tales from the perspective of women. who understand those myths very well indeed, knowing both the knight and the monster have their counterparts in the real world.  Both of them are men. 

Take your situation and amplify it ever so slightly.


Now instead of a random bottom groping, you're at a club when you get isolated from your friends, surrounded by 2 or 3 gropers who block your exit. One manages to get a hand inside your shirt before your friends finally shake off the booze enough to realize what's happening and hustle you away. The gropers are laughing and insisting it's just all part of the fun. Still cool with you? 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

That's Not "Slightly"

M Scott Eiland's picture

And I'd still want some other body determining whether it happened--and any consequences from said determination--to be something other than some campus kangaroo court with ridiculously relaxed evidentiary standards and an allergy to due process.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You might want that, but universities can't afford


and won't risk the publicity involved in giving the public the impression that they turn a blind eye to rape and sexual assault. You see the business problem, surely.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

As Opposed To. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .the publicity involved in holding a kangaroo court and expelling someone before he can receive a degree that he's already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in pursuit of, using evidence that a prosecutor wouldn't even dream of acting on unless he or she is a Nifong wannabe? The university has the option of saying "The DA can prosecute if the evidence supports it. That's their call."

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

University of Wilmington. "We'll crush the gonads of any


man who so much as thinks a date rapey thought." 


"Well I know where my daughter's going."

-- Every parent in America

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

That Might Have Worked

M Scott Eiland's picture

Doing it this way--crappy due process and constructive theft of several hundred thousand dollars per student at the high end--is just going to get them sued, and cause the young women who have legitimate complaints to be taken less seriously.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Not Actually,the U's Can Man-Up Also, These are Criminal Matters


...the Universities should take the position that their mission is the education of the nations young people...not acting as a babysitter.


The parents are asking for a step too far from an educational institution.


Best Wishes, Traveller



MSE can


speak for himself,  but I don't think the issue is whether it's "still cool"  but what happens to the alleged gropers under what process,  and who should be in charge of the process (the justice system or college administrators).


I'd also like to ask a question:  who's responsible for the assault?

(a) the gropers

(b) the friends who didn't stick next to MSE

(c) the club

(d) the university 20 miles away that MSE goes to

(e) the university 30 miles away that the one of the gropers goes to

(f) the online university 1200 miles away that another one of the gropers takes courses from


A lot of the controversial actions are arising because a lot of people seem to think (d) and/or (e) are reasonable.   I predict that the first lawsuit claiming (f) will cause some rethinking on (d) and (e).

Universities have long considered themselves liable/responsible


for what their students do when off campus. You can understand why, when you realize news stories are going to invariably run ledes and headlines such as "Penn State Student M. Scott Eiland Revealed as Mad Groper of Maui."  


I do agree however that there should be a process that doesn't rely on hearsay to determine what happens in those cases.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

The newspaper here


(The Monitor,  fairly large circulation and at the time part of the Orange County Register chain) once published a story about "UTPA electrical engineering student convicted.."  of some fairly nasty felony.   


He'd never been one of our students.   I guess he was just trying to make the judge think he had some life other than crime,  and the reporter on the scene just took the criminal's allocution as fact.


With online courses,  dual enrollment at community colleges,  part time students,  etc,  I'm pretty sure that sooner or later courts are going to have to address how tenuous a connection can still justify a Title IX lawsuit.

I Object To That Hypothetical

M Scott Eiland's picture

If I'm going to be labeled as the Mad Groper of Maui, I should at least have gotten a Hawaiian vacation out of the deal, and I've never been there. :-(

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

This Seems Like a Simple Battery to Me...Or a Series of Them


...I don't think the schools are equipped at all to be in this kind of adjudication process.


If it rises to the level of a criminal complaint, and we need more prosecutors and courts, then  this is where these matters properly belong.


As a side note, this continues, in my opinion, to infantize women...they need simply to take control of their bodies and themselves and file criminal complaints.


It is their duty and responsibility to themselves and other women.


I will also note that men are finally Suing Universities for these policies, as they vigorously should.


Peter Yu, Drew Sterrett and Lewis McLeod were headed toward bright futures at prestigious colleges and universities when each got involved in one-night sexual encounters.

All three young men claimed the encounters were consensual — but the women asserted otherwise. In each case, campus officials found the men responsible for sexual assault and expelled or suspended them.

But all three are pushing back, suing the schools on charges that their rights to a fair hearing were violated.






Bird Dog's picture


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Universities Have Never Had Much Use For Due Process

M Scott Eiland's picture

Fortunately, there is an organization ready to hold their feet to the fire at need.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Hope Solo, of Woman's Soccer Fame, Arrested....


....and being held for a Domestic Violence Hearing on Monday.


Violent women is not an unknown or unknowable subject. There is lots of it out there in our Society.




M Scott Eiland's picture

We'll have to see how that turns out. The last time her name came up in allegations of this sort, she was alleged to be on the receiving end.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

No, BD is right to ask

Jay C's picture

Just as you and catchy are right to post the corrective data. Not that it will help, IMO. It's  a classic dodge: trying to deflect criticism of George Will's stupid comments by fixating on statistical minutiae. The main point is that he (Will) made light of sexual assault - for which he deserves (IMO) all the criticism he gets. "Privileged status" as a conservative pundit notwithstanding.....


"Statistical minutiae"


I think you're right to point out that even if Will were right on the stats, he would still be deserving of criticism, e.g. for referring to "capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching." Does anyone here think forcibly petting a girl isn't sexual assault if there's no penetration? I'm not sure what planet Will lives on.


But the stats are also important. They could've suggested a high % of falsely reported cases, and that would've exonerated BD and Will's picture of a high % of sexual assault accusations just being women harassing men. But the stats don't show that. All Will showed is that he's too insensitive and incompetent to be accurate on issues of sexual assault.

Depends On How Broad That Definition Is

M Scott Eiland's picture

Having, say, your posterior grabbed in a bar or on the street by a stranger without permission is not necessarily a pleasant experience, but I would object if such incidents were being used to come up with those numbers--if that definition is used *I've* been sexually assaulted enough times to require both hands to count, though the last such incident was over twenty years ago now. I certainly would object if a single such incident was used to throw someone out of school based on a simple preponderance of evidence that it had occurred.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).



strangers grabbed your ass and you were like, no big deal?


Friend or an acquaintance grabbing a dudes ass in college is not the same as a stranger groping a woman. Context matters, and frankly you were sexually assaulted, but yr social boundaries are necessarily different than a woman's.


But really I just wanted to lock yr comment in. For posterity. So to speak.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” -George Bernard Shaw

I Was Startled

M Scott Eiland's picture

And wasn't injured, so decided to ignore it on each occasion. And yes, strangers on each occasion (mostly young women, a man or two).

And the locking thing doesn't work on moderators, though I have no intention of changing the comment.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Changing the topic...


I recently got a memo addressed to all personnel at the university instructing us to immediately report any information about anything that could be construed as a sexual assault.  Nothing new there.  What was new was a specific order to disregard any requests for confidentiality made by the victim. Given the "staff and faculty" address this presumably includes counselors and nurses.


What do you think?   I can see both the ethical justification and the desire to avoid legal liability.  


But I'm sure there will be victims who decline to seek any kind of help at all if they don't know and can't control what kind of avalanche of publicity and process they're setting off.  


It might even be a majority of victims deterred from seeking help.  The large difference in number of reported assaults on anonymous surveys versus complaints filed with police would seem to indicate that the desire for confidentiality is very strong.



Does your university treat any other personnel issue the same


way? Typically if a student, staff or faculty member has a grievance with some other member of the university, he or she can report the matter in confidence to an Ombudsperson or similar figure, no? If that's the case, one has to ask the question: why strip confidentiality from this one area?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Yes and no


First,  I should say that I'm speculating - it's entirely possible that counselors and nurses and similar staff got a separate memo the rest of us didn't see.


And of course the University would treat the matter as "confidential" in the sense that the victim's name wouldn't be published or distributed to people who don't "need" to know.   But that list could be a lot longer than some victims feel comfortable with.   It's easy to imagine (for example) a woman not wanting a single male on the whole planet to know details of her case.


There are many other situations where confidentiality doesn't apply.  If someone comes to me and says "Joe is embezzling money but I just wanted to get it off my chest and request that you take no further action and tell no one," then I can't honor that request.  But the big difference in such a case is that person making the request is not the victim.



Scott Walker hasn't gotten the doo-doo off his heel


just yet.  Yes, Judge Randa halted the John Doe investigation back in May.  He did not kill it entirely.  It's now in judicial review.  The prosecutors have put the claims out in the open.  This isn't done by a long shot.