18 ms·

My Title IX Inquisition

196 points by privong 11y ago

coreyp_1 11y ago
I hope everyone reads this.
d-a-r-y-l 11y ago
This is eye-opening. I went to university nearly 15 years ago, but it sounds like Title IX removes freedom of speech unless it agrees with mainstream culture. Her quote - "What’s being lost, along with job security, is the liberty to publish ideas that might go against the grain." is absolutely terrifying to me. The ability to call Title IX on a subject you find offends you implies that the accusers who do this are using it for manipulation, not a safe way to find help for an actual violation.
sova 11y ago
oh hey they took down the paywall. nice.
afarrell 11y ago
If free speech only applies to government suppression of speech, then what would be the problem with a movie studio refusing to hire actors or directors who had been involved in the Communist Party? Let's assume that the studio is outside CA so the following law does not apply: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1101-1106 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...
DiabloD3 11y ago
When did being an adult stop meaning being an adult? If you're old enough to be in college, you're old enough to respect other people even if you disagree with them (and especially so if you disagree with them because you're wrong). This has nothing to do with rape or feminism or any other of these issues: it has to do with respect and self-respect, neither of these the student body at that school seems to be rich in.
- themartorana 11y ago
  If we feel righteous in empowering 18 year olds with the tools of war and dispatching them to rain down our wrath - and perhaps be killed in the act - then they should be treated with the same capacity for adult thought and reason as anyone else - and with it the same great responsibility that comes with adulthood. To that point, I think they (18+ year olds) should be allowed to drink, too, but that's a topic for a different day.
  - FrankenPC 11y ago
    If they can kill, they can drink.
    - hvis 11y ago
      Maybe the idea is that the first few years the youngsters spend in the killing trade, it should be without the influence of alcohol.
oldmanjay 11y ago
strange things can happen when you optimize complex systems for pathological cases
vaadu 11y ago
She was attacked and subjected to significant legal harassment, merely because she wrote an op-ed on sexual politics on campus, and some people didn’t like her opinion. They then used the badly written Title IX law, passed in 1972 by Congress to “deal with gender discrimination in public education”, to get her, and her supporters, charged and interrogated repeatedly by lawyers. Her accusers were allowed to remain anonymous. She was denied the right to use a lawyer. The specific charges against her were never provided in writing. And they were apparently based merely on the fact that her op-ed offended her accusers. Since the attacks against her were instigated by the students, who represent our future, this story will give you a good sense of where our society is heading. And it ain’t paradise.
- underdown 11y ago
  I think blaming the 1972 law is misguided. In 2011 the Department of Education made policy changes that limited due process. Source: http://www.nacua.org/documents/OCRLetterviolence.pdf http://www.nacua.org/documents/OCRLetterviolence.pdf
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    It's strange how the federal government, bound by the constitution to due process, can mandate it be removed at universities.
- pacaro 11y ago
  Barratry [1] should be more broadly treated as either a crime or grounds for disbarment [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)
  - Intermernet 11y ago
    Interesting, I didn't know the common law definition, but I did know the maritime law definition, but can't remember where from... I think it was from a David Eddings book from my child-hood. "In maritime law, barratry is the commission of an act by the master or mariners of a vessel for an unlawful or fraudulent purpose that is contrary to the duty owed to the owners, by which act the owners sustain injury." [1] EDIT: Link [1]: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry
gizmo686 11y ago
I don't think the main problem here is our infatalizing students (although that is certainly a problem, and a part of this story, that I could write at length about). Rather, it seems that the main problem is that we enacted policies with good intentions without considering whether the policies themselves were a good idea. In large part, I think this is true because as a society we are to a large distinguish between criticisms of a policy with criticisms of the stated goal of the policy. [1]. This led to a policy where it is possible for a single person (although in this case it was 2) to initiate the entire inquiry [2]. In a system as large as a university, you have to be prepared for such entities. [1] More cynically, policymakers want to be seen as doing something, and do not care sufficiently what it is that they are actual doing. [2] The author did acknowledge this nature of the problem.
- HillRat 11y ago
  Excellent points! I'd also note that these kinds of policies often have to start out with a hair trigger due to the fundamental asymmetry between the parties; the more powerful have many avenues to shut down the weak, so the weak need large-caliber cannon to take on systemic discrimination. But when the systems begin to balance out -- not many universities maintain anti-feminist or pro-racist cultures, though I can name a few that do -- then those same powers are easily abused, simply because there aren't significant targets to go after. So, minor figures, often on the same political side as the aggrieved, are attacked using laws that are the equivalent of using grapeshot to kill a goldfish. Unfortunately, as you point out, it's hard to reform those laws, because when you have people who want to repeal progress entirely, it's hard to distinguish (and, practically, there might not be any difference) between "reform" and "repeal." But, seriously, young people. What the hell? (And get off my lawn!)
  - jallmann 11y ago
    While I generally agree with your statements, it is important to note that in this case, the article's author has been arguing that any "fundamental asymmetries" between students and faculty are largely illusory, and such hair-trigger policies are detrimental for all parties in the long run, regardless of the policy lending any pressure to the cultural or legal "balance" within the institute.
dikaiosune 11y ago
The one thing I'm not clear on is why she didn't consult with a lawyer to begin with. They might have said to her that a lawyer couldn't be present, but I think that might have changed if she'd talked to one anyway.
- awakeasleep 11y ago
  Lawyers, particularly specialized lawyers with a good reputation, tend to cost a lot of money. The author is a professor. The question becomes, why didn't the author find good, pro-bono legal counsel willing to fight against students in a title IX case.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    And that is why we have the popehat signal. Ken and his cohort would have jumped on that like crazy.
    - hoopd 11y ago
      And that's the problem of being a moderate leftist trying to defend yourself against radical leftists, unless you can get the ACLU to pick up your case you have to turn to outside groups like the far right, who you don't understand, for help. This would be a risky case for a leftist lawyer to take pro bono because they may face a severe political backlash for it.
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        I would not call Ken White far right (or right) at all. He is very sane and strong defender of the first amendment. Of course the fight of the (self perceived) marginalized groups to try and dismantle the first is more than ironic and amusing.
        hoopd 11y ago
        To a moderate leftist in a fight with radical leftists, libertarians are "far right" which roughly translates to non-mainstream right. The point is the policing powers of the radical left are such that when a member of the moderate left is chosen for public castigation their peers don't want to get involved. Like the author said, she's getting a lot of silent support from people who aren't daring to go public with their support. The reason libertarians are happy to get involved publicly is they're far outside the political left so the radical left holds very little power over them. A moderate leftist reaching out to Ken White for help would be like a centrist republican contacting the ACLU, that's a lot of trust to place in people that you normally disagree with. edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted here, just trying to explain why it might be difficult for the author to find pro-bono legal help from within her existing social network.
afarrell 11y ago
Running a system of justice is expensive, difficult, and subject to failures. Failures are injustices. If we as a society decide that universities should run their own justice systems, we must accept that it will cost a lot of money and result in some amount of injustice. If that means denying education to some that cannot afford it, that is a trade-off that we must acknowledge it or increase public funding of universities.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
scintill76 11y ago
> A week later I heard from the investigators. For reasons I wasn’t privy to, the university had hired an outside law firm, based in another Midwestern city an hour-and-a-half flight away... the phrase "billable hours" came to mind > I’m no expert on legal fees, but I was pretty sure the meter was ticking in $10,000 increments. > new Title IX complaints have been filed against the faculty-support person who accompanied me to the session with the investigators... Another team of lawyers from the same firm has been appointed to conduct a new investigation. > At the end of the interrogation, the investigators asked if I wanted to file my own retaliation complaint against the student who’d revealed the charges. Well, I see one party who's winning it big here. On a related note, it's obscene how locked-down the process sounds. Forbidding having an attorney present, forbidding the recording of the proceedings, being extremely unwilling to reveal the charges ahead of interrogation so that a defense could be prepared. Is it even legal to forbid recording? Some quick Googling suggests the jurisdiction the author is in is a one-party consent state, but IANAL. What would be the consequences of refusing to accept their terms? > Also that my tweets were apparently being monitored. Well, "monitored" is too strong IMO -- really, people just got angry enough to stalk the author on social media until they found something damning. Then again, as this and other pitchfork mob cases show, you may as well treat everything you say or write as if it is monitored; because someday, someone will probably find a reason to dig through it.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  This is one of the big problems with these things being handled as "administrative" processes instead of criminal. You don't have the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to know the charges against you. You don't have the right to face the accused. This is rule 12 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." - Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
enknamel 11y ago
Wow. I've about cases like this but this just a new extreme. It appears students may now freely censor professors for almost any reason.
indrax 11y ago
Imagine if some company was dealing with a lawsuit related to sexual harassment, and some mid-level executive of the company wrote a prominent article mentioning the case, their own position, and criticizing the victim's story... I don't understand how she's shocked that this could be taken as retaliation. It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint. If you think professors should be more 'free' than corporate executive, how do you ensure the students aren't more vulnerable than corporate employees? This is a person in a high status position mocking someone for being intimidated.
- parennoob 11y ago
  > It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint. Read the article carefully. The student that filed the complaint wasn't the one who she mentioned in the previous article. It was someone she had "mentioned fleetingly" -- so looking at the previous article [1], it might be the grad student that the professor had previously dated, and that he subsequently filed a lawsuit against. His reasons for doing so are not mentioned in the article. I fail to see how mentioning that the professor filed a lawsuit against someone he had previously dated is retaliatory. It is a simple statement of fact, and if anything, paints the professor in a bad light. [1] http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/ http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/ (paragraph starting "The aftermath...")
  - indrax 11y ago
    You can make a lot of propaganda by choosing facts. >>"The professor sued for defamation various colleagues, administrators, and a former grad student whom, according to his complaint, he had previously dated; " She's repeating a 'fact' out of the professor's complaint, while leaving out the supposedly defaming statements. The additional relevant information might include the conditions under which they started and stopped dating, or if it happened at all. So this person said something about a sexual assault suspect, then got sued for it, and he said they had dated. Then some other professor writes about her, and nothing about what actually happened. (And we, still now, are mainly relying on that other professor's narrative.) And the article she's mentioned in is extremely dismissive of the whole situation. So who's getting attacked for free speech and stating facts here? Let's not forget the professor's most recent book "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation (Metropolitan Books, 2014)."
parennoob 11y ago
The author is writing a book titled "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation"; and dared to suggest in this article [1] that radical feminism-influenced policies were turning college campuses into a version of middle school. There was no way she was not going to be attacked by said radical feminists and "triggered" students. Of course, the people who currently benefit from it (the hordes of administrators who enforce these ridiculous policies) are never going to admit that they are in the wrong, or that they should allow for more reasoned due process. Hopefully, enough people read articles like this, and realize that Title IX is a complete farce. Pressuring legislators to throw out Title IX is the only sensible course of action against it. [1] http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/ http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Pressuring legislators to throw out Title IX is the only sensible course of action against it. Do you disagree with the principle of Title IX (i.e. that federal money should not fund educational activities that discriminate on the basis of sex), or is it that Title IX has led to bad events and the only way to stop those bad events is to remove Title IX?
  - parennoob 11y ago
    The latter. The majority of Title IX complaints today have nothing to do with federal funding of men's athletics programs, which was what the law was originally written to address.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JesperRavn 11y ago
This is the logical conclusion of title IX, which is the education version of section VII of the civil rights act. Both define discrimination in such a broad way, that expressing an opinion could be considered as discrimination. Whether that opinion is "girls are not as smart as boys on average" or "political correctness has gone too far" is a detail. In principal, holding any incorrect opinion could indicate a bias that leads to discrimination.
- Frondo 11y ago
  If a university professor is standing up in front of class and saying, "It's just my opinion, but girls are not as smart as boys on average," then it's hard to see how that wouldn't come part and parcel with some sort of gender-based discrimination. It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing. "It's my opinion that girls are not as smart as boys on average, but I will treat everyone in my class fairly" doesn't pass the sniff test for believability.
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    Isn't the statement "girls are not as smart as boys on average" precisely the type of speech we want professors to have the freedom to say. Unless you want to close of an entire line of inquiry to investigation and scrutiny.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Asking the question and exploring it is one thing, asserting it, without evidence, as true, is another.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing. This is a great example of the kind of reasoning I was talking about. Because of your political beliefs you have determined that no reasonable person thinks "girls are not as smart as boys". From this you conclude that the only reason a person would conclude this, is because of some deeper bias against women. Therefore you conclude that such a person is very likely to treat women unfairly in the classroom. Your political beliefs have become law, because the law interprets discrimination in a way that is informed by your beliefs. EDIT: After more research, the government's advice is that title IX never applies to protected speech alone [0]. So saying "girls are less intelligent than boys" in fact could never, in itself, violate title IX. However, the definition of harassment is so vague that it's understandable that universities can't figure out how to reconcile the first amendment with title IX. [0] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html Harassment, however, to be prohibited by the statutes within OCR's jurisdiction, must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive. Under OCR's standard, the conduct must also be considered sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program. Thus, OCR's standards require that the conduct be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position, considering all the circumstances, including the alleged victim’s age.
reamworks 11y ago
Welcome to Barack Obama's America.
smegel 11y ago
Questioning feminism has become like questioning religion in the dark ages. Let's hope more people like her continue to speak out against these persecutions.
- loomio 11y ago
  Did you even read the article? The author self-identifies as a feminist. Your implication that this is about feminism vs not-feminism is simplistic and missing the point.
  - nawitus 11y ago
    Well, broadly speaking feminists tend to agree with these Title IX "inquisitions". Her declaring to be a feminist doesn't really mean that feminists tend to agree with her.
    - pekk 11y ago
      It is hard to say what feminists broadly speaking think when we do not have a survey of self-identified feminists in front of us.
      - EliRivers 11y ago
        Hello. I am one survey point for you. I believe women should have equal political and social rights, which makes me a feminist. I massively disagree with the general thrust of these "inquisitions" as discussed in the article, although the original Title IX, if I understand it, was meant to be about equalising opportunity[1] and not about whatever this is all about. [1] "The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs", from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titleix.php http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titleix.php
        hoopd 11y ago
        > I am one survey point for you. I believe women should have equal political and social rights, which makes me a feminist. I also believe women should have equal political and social rights, yet I'm not at all a feminist.
venomsnake 11y ago
I think that the social discourse is moving in a place where badthink, crimethink, goodthink and so on can be used unironically. That makes me feel unsafe, chilled, terrified and having a visceral reaction.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Hell, just look at "gamergate" from the past year... Even without mentioning a side, or even which way you lean or assign a viewpoint a mention of the situation garners a visceral response. I myself had only seen it in passing mention a bunch on twitter a pro/anti gamergate and it took a lot of effort to even dig into wtf was going on. Even then it was absurd. I think that people need to grow the hell up, and develop a little bit of a thick skin here. I also agree with other comments, any legal charges are best met with legal council, and I don't think the law firm in question is driven by proper motives, which should be to establish if the charges have merit and what corrective actions to take if they do. It seems more about perpetuating murky legal maneuvering.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Many people do need a thicker skin. The people whose home addresses were published, along with death threats of unknown credibility (i.e. they could be credible, they could be jokes, how can you tell at a glance?) don't need a thicker skin; the rest of us need to make sure that menacing behavior doesn't happen. It's all fun and games until the death threats/doxxing happen. (That's where we go from actual civil or uncivil discourse, which should always be ok, to something that's never appropriate/ok.)
    - tracker1 11y ago
      Just to be clear, I'm not excusing or endorsing any death threats or disclosing the home addresses of anyone.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I've not read this article, but I did read her original article. The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?) and then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases. I'm surprised anyone thought this was a good idea to publish and I'm not surprised it had repercussions (though I've not read the latest article to find out what they were and if they were an overreaction). What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students, followed by a story of an author being harassed by an editor, followed by the argument that if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life. That's not even internally consistent on several levels.
- rweba 11y ago
  1) "The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?)" - But should she be subjected to an investigation for writing a "naive" article? I think not, as surely the freedom of thought includes the freedom to have "wrong" opinions? (2) "then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases." -Disagree. These cases are in the public record. Why shouldn't she mention them? It's not as if she has sworn confidentiality or she had inside information. (3) "What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students" - I don't think this is an accurate summary at all. You don't have to agree with her opinion, her point was that the new attitudes she's complaining about greatly exaggerate the power of professors over students. A professor has the power to give a student a bad grade or write them a bad recommendation. A student has the power to complain about the professor to the dean/chair and give him/her a bad evaluation. If a student alleges sexual harassment or assault the professor's career could be destroyed even if the charges are not proven. Basically a professor has some power, but not some kind of unlimited power over individual students, which seems to be what is being alleged. (4) "if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life." -Nope. I would phrase it as "If students are overly coddled and swaddled they will not develop psychological coping skills to deal with a real world which is not going to exquisitely cater to their sensitivities".
paulsutter 11y ago
Anytime someone tells you that you can't have a lawyer present, you definitely need to call a lawyer. From http://www.nacua.org/onlinecourses/title_ix_coordinator_training_2012/docs/ReviewSexualAssaultPolicy_Feb2012.pdf http://www.nacua.org/onlinecourses/title_ix_coordinator_trai... "State and federal courts — not OCR — have the final say in determining relevant due process requirements. Courts are likely to give accused students a right to legal assistance" (OCR is the DoE Office of Civil Rights which controls Title IX)
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Yes, this was a red flag in the article. She's a tenured professor being attacked by a pair of anonymous malicious students who could destroy her career with one false, perverse accusation, with impunity? And the idiot administration is taking these accusers seriously enough to hire an out of town law firm to prosecute the case? She should definitely have lawyered up and threatened a big, glaringly public, embarrassing lawsuit. Bureaucrats are cowards, in general, and such a tenuous case would likely have been dropped.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Yeah, the minute someone, anyone, tells me I don't have a right to a lawyer is the minute I tell them "My lawyer will be in contact regarding that assertion."
- mattnad 11y ago
  Schools are allowed to set their own policies on legal representation in internal matters (except where stipulated by law). It's only when a dispute hits the legal system that a right to an attorney is sacrosanct.
lexx 11y ago
This is only for subscribers...
l1n 11y ago
Anyone else getting blocked by a paywall?
- PeterWhittaker 11y ago
  Yup.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bkurtz13 11y ago
I can't read it because of an obnoxious paywall. There needs to be a better way to monetize written content online than this...
- mcherm 11y ago
  http://archive.is/CwQAP http://archive.is/CwQAP
  - Sheerluck_H 11y ago
    Thanks! (how'd you do that?)
shiggerino 11y ago
From the op-ed in question: "It’s not that I didn’t make my share of mistakes, or act stupidly and inchoately, but it was embarrassing, not traumatizing." [1] I think this is an important point. These kids can't tell being embarrassed from being traumatized. Presumably this woman embarrassed herself by getting too drunk to perform in bed, so she felt traumatized, and the idiotic professor was the obvious scapegoat. And when the infantilized man- and womanchildren are dragged out of their "safe spaces" to face real criticism for their embarrasing ideas, it's a traumatic experience, so who else to blame, but those who criticise them? In that mindset it's easy to imagine the op-ed as a retaliation. 1. https://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia/190351/ https://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia/190351/

196 points by privong 11y ago

I hope everyone reads this.

This is eye-opening. I went to university nearly 15 years ago, but it sounds like Title IX removes freedom of speech unless it agrees with mainstream culture. Her quote - "What’s being lost, along with job security, is the liberty to publish ideas that might go against the grain." is absolutely terrifying to me. The ability to call Title IX on a subject you find offends you implies that the accusers who do this are using it for manipulation, not a safe way to find help for an actual violation.

sova 11y ago

oh hey they took down the paywall. nice.

afarrell 11y ago

If free speech only applies to government suppression of speech, then what would be the problem with a movie studio refusing to hire actors or directors who had been involved in the Communist Party? Let's assume that the studio is outside CA so the following law does not apply: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1101-1106 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...

DiabloD3 11y ago

When did being an adult stop meaning being an adult? If you're old enough to be in college, you're old enough to respect other people even if you disagree with them (and especially so if you disagree with them because you're wrong). This has nothing to do with rape or feminism or any other of these issues: it has to do with respect and self-respect, neither of these the student body at that school seems to be rich in.

themartorana 11y ago
If we feel righteous in empowering 18 year olds with the tools of war and dispatching them to rain down our wrath - and perhaps be killed in the act - then they should be treated with the same capacity for adult thought and reason as anyone else - and with it the same great responsibility that comes with adulthood. To that point, I think they (18+ year olds) should be allowed to drink, too, but that's a topic for a different day.
- FrankenPC 11y ago
  If they can kill, they can drink.
  - hvis 11y ago
    Maybe the idea is that the first few years the youngsters spend in the killing trade, it should be without the influence of alcohol.

oldmanjay 11y ago

strange things can happen when you optimize complex systems for pathological cases

vaadu 11y ago

She was attacked and subjected to significant legal harassment, merely because she wrote an op-ed on sexual politics on campus, and some people didn’t like her opinion. They then used the badly written Title IX law, passed in 1972 by Congress to “deal with gender discrimination in public education”, to get her, and her supporters, charged and interrogated repeatedly by lawyers. Her accusers were allowed to remain anonymous. She was denied the right to use a lawyer. The specific charges against her were never provided in writing. And they were apparently based merely on the fact that her op-ed offended her accusers. Since the attacks against her were instigated by the students, who represent our future, this story will give you a good sense of where our society is heading. And it ain’t paradise.

underdown 11y ago
I think blaming the 1972 law is misguided. In 2011 the Department of Education made policy changes that limited due process. Source: http://www.nacua.org/documents/OCRLetterviolence.pdf http://www.nacua.org/documents/OCRLetterviolence.pdf
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  It's strange how the federal government, bound by the constitution to due process, can mandate it be removed at universities.
pacaro 11y ago
Barratry [1] should be more broadly treated as either a crime or grounds for disbarment [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)
- Intermernet 11y ago
  Interesting, I didn't know the common law definition, but I did know the maritime law definition, but can't remember where from... I think it was from a David Eddings book from my child-hood. "In maritime law, barratry is the commission of an act by the master or mariners of a vessel for an unlawful or fraudulent purpose that is contrary to the duty owed to the owners, by which act the owners sustain injury." [1] EDIT: Link [1]: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry

gizmo686 11y ago

I don't think the main problem here is our infatalizing students (although that is certainly a problem, and a part of this story, that I could write at length about). Rather, it seems that the main problem is that we enacted policies with good intentions without considering whether the policies themselves were a good idea. In large part, I think this is true because as a society we are to a large distinguish between criticisms of a policy with criticisms of the stated goal of the policy. [1]. This led to a policy where it is possible for a single person (although in this case it was 2) to initiate the entire inquiry [2]. In a system as large as a university, you have to be prepared for such entities. [1] More cynically, policymakers want to be seen as doing something, and do not care sufficiently what it is that they are actual doing. [2] The author did acknowledge this nature of the problem.

HillRat 11y ago
Excellent points! I'd also note that these kinds of policies often have to start out with a hair trigger due to the fundamental asymmetry between the parties; the more powerful have many avenues to shut down the weak, so the weak need large-caliber cannon to take on systemic discrimination. But when the systems begin to balance out -- not many universities maintain anti-feminist or pro-racist cultures, though I can name a few that do -- then those same powers are easily abused, simply because there aren't significant targets to go after. So, minor figures, often on the same political side as the aggrieved, are attacked using laws that are the equivalent of using grapeshot to kill a goldfish. Unfortunately, as you point out, it's hard to reform those laws, because when you have people who want to repeal progress entirely, it's hard to distinguish (and, practically, there might not be any difference) between "reform" and "repeal." But, seriously, young people. What the hell? (And get off my lawn!)
- jallmann 11y ago
  While I generally agree with your statements, it is important to note that in this case, the article's author has been arguing that any "fundamental asymmetries" between students and faculty are largely illusory, and such hair-trigger policies are detrimental for all parties in the long run, regardless of the policy lending any pressure to the cultural or legal "balance" within the institute.

dikaiosune 11y ago

The one thing I'm not clear on is why she didn't consult with a lawyer to begin with. They might have said to her that a lawyer couldn't be present, but I think that might have changed if she'd talked to one anyway.

awakeasleep 11y ago
Lawyers, particularly specialized lawyers with a good reputation, tend to cost a lot of money. The author is a professor. The question becomes, why didn't the author find good, pro-bono legal counsel willing to fight against students in a title IX case.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  And that is why we have the popehat signal. Ken and his cohort would have jumped on that like crazy.
  - hoopd 11y ago
    And that's the problem of being a moderate leftist trying to defend yourself against radical leftists, unless you can get the ACLU to pick up your case you have to turn to outside groups like the far right, who you don't understand, for help. This would be a risky case for a leftist lawyer to take pro bono because they may face a severe political backlash for it.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      I would not call Ken White far right (or right) at all. He is very sane and strong defender of the first amendment. Of course the fight of the (self perceived) marginalized groups to try and dismantle the first is more than ironic and amusing.
      - hoopd 11y ago
        To a moderate leftist in a fight with radical leftists, libertarians are "far right" which roughly translates to non-mainstream right. The point is the policing powers of the radical left are such that when a member of the moderate left is chosen for public castigation their peers don't want to get involved. Like the author said, she's getting a lot of silent support from people who aren't daring to go public with their support. The reason libertarians are happy to get involved publicly is they're far outside the political left so the radical left holds very little power over them. A moderate leftist reaching out to Ken White for help would be like a centrist republican contacting the ACLU, that's a lot of trust to place in people that you normally disagree with. edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted here, just trying to explain why it might be difficult for the author to find pro-bono legal help from within her existing social network.

afarrell 11y ago

Running a system of justice is expensive, difficult, and subject to failures. Failures are injustices. If we as a society decide that universities should run their own justice systems, we must accept that it will cost a lot of money and result in some amount of injustice. If that means denying education to some that cannot afford it, that is a trade-off that we must acknowledge it or increase public funding of universities.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

scintill76 11y ago

> A week later I heard from the investigators. For reasons I wasn’t privy to, the university had hired an outside law firm, based in another Midwestern city an hour-and-a-half flight away... the phrase "billable hours" came to mind > I’m no expert on legal fees, but I was pretty sure the meter was ticking in $10,000 increments. > new Title IX complaints have been filed against the faculty-support person who accompanied me to the session with the investigators... Another team of lawyers from the same firm has been appointed to conduct a new investigation. > At the end of the interrogation, the investigators asked if I wanted to file my own retaliation complaint against the student who’d revealed the charges. Well, I see one party who's winning it big here. On a related note, it's obscene how locked-down the process sounds. Forbidding having an attorney present, forbidding the recording of the proceedings, being extremely unwilling to reveal the charges ahead of interrogation so that a defense could be prepared. Is it even legal to forbid recording? Some quick Googling suggests the jurisdiction the author is in is a one-party consent state, but IANAL. What would be the consequences of refusing to accept their terms? > Also that my tweets were apparently being monitored. Well, "monitored" is too strong IMO -- really, people just got angry enough to stalk the author on social media until they found something damning. Then again, as this and other pitchfork mob cases show, you may as well treat everything you say or write as if it is monitored; because someday, someone will probably find a reason to dig through it.

caseysoftware 11y ago
This is one of the big problems with these things being handled as "administrative" processes instead of criminal. You don't have the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to know the charges against you. You don't have the right to face the accused. This is rule 12 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." - Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

enknamel 11y ago

Wow. I've about cases like this but this just a new extreme. It appears students may now freely censor professors for almost any reason.

indrax 11y ago

Imagine if some company was dealing with a lawsuit related to sexual harassment, and some mid-level executive of the company wrote a prominent article mentioning the case, their own position, and criticizing the victim's story... I don't understand how she's shocked that this could be taken as retaliation. It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint. If you think professors should be more 'free' than corporate executive, how do you ensure the students aren't more vulnerable than corporate employees? This is a person in a high status position mocking someone for being intimidated.

parennoob 11y ago
> It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint. Read the article carefully. The student that filed the complaint wasn't the one who she mentioned in the previous article. It was someone she had "mentioned fleetingly" -- so looking at the previous article [1], it might be the grad student that the professor had previously dated, and that he subsequently filed a lawsuit against. His reasons for doing so are not mentioned in the article. I fail to see how mentioning that the professor filed a lawsuit against someone he had previously dated is retaliatory. It is a simple statement of fact, and if anything, paints the professor in a bad light. [1] http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/ http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/ (paragraph starting "The aftermath...")
- indrax 11y ago
  You can make a lot of propaganda by choosing facts. >>"The professor sued for defamation various colleagues, administrators, and a former grad student whom, according to his complaint, he had previously dated; " She's repeating a 'fact' out of the professor's complaint, while leaving out the supposedly defaming statements. The additional relevant information might include the conditions under which they started and stopped dating, or if it happened at all. So this person said something about a sexual assault suspect, then got sued for it, and he said they had dated. Then some other professor writes about her, and nothing about what actually happened. (And we, still now, are mainly relying on that other professor's narrative.) And the article she's mentioned in is extremely dismissive of the whole situation. So who's getting attacked for free speech and stating facts here? Let's not forget the professor's most recent book "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation (Metropolitan Books, 2014)."

parennoob 11y ago

The author is writing a book titled "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation"; and dared to suggest in this article [1] that radical feminism-influenced policies were turning college campuses into a version of middle school. There was no way she was not going to be attacked by said radical feminists and "triggered" students. Of course, the people who currently benefit from it (the hordes of administrators who enforce these ridiculous policies) are never going to admit that they are in the wrong, or that they should allow for more reasoned due process. Hopefully, enough people read articles like this, and realize that Title IX is a complete farce. Pressuring legislators to throw out Title IX is the only sensible course of action against it. [1] http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/ http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/

EliRivers 11y ago
Pressuring legislators to throw out Title IX is the only sensible course of action against it. Do you disagree with the principle of Title IX (i.e. that federal money should not fund educational activities that discriminate on the basis of sex), or is it that Title IX has led to bad events and the only way to stop those bad events is to remove Title IX?
- parennoob 11y ago
  The latter. The majority of Title IX complaints today have nothing to do with federal funding of men's athletics programs, which was what the law was originally written to address.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

JesperRavn 11y ago

This is the logical conclusion of title IX, which is the education version of section VII of the civil rights act. Both define discrimination in such a broad way, that expressing an opinion could be considered as discrimination. Whether that opinion is "girls are not as smart as boys on average" or "political correctness has gone too far" is a detail. In principal, holding any incorrect opinion could indicate a bias that leads to discrimination.

Frondo 11y ago
If a university professor is standing up in front of class and saying, "It's just my opinion, but girls are not as smart as boys on average," then it's hard to see how that wouldn't come part and parcel with some sort of gender-based discrimination. It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing. "It's my opinion that girls are not as smart as boys on average, but I will treat everyone in my class fairly" doesn't pass the sniff test for believability.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  Isn't the statement "girls are not as smart as boys on average" precisely the type of speech we want professors to have the freedom to say. Unless you want to close of an entire line of inquiry to investigation and scrutiny.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Asking the question and exploring it is one thing, asserting it, without evidence, as true, is another.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  It's like a cockroach--you never see just one cockroach, if you do, there's a lot more you're not seeing. This is a great example of the kind of reasoning I was talking about. Because of your political beliefs you have determined that no reasonable person thinks "girls are not as smart as boys". From this you conclude that the only reason a person would conclude this, is because of some deeper bias against women. Therefore you conclude that such a person is very likely to treat women unfairly in the classroom. Your political beliefs have become law, because the law interprets discrimination in a way that is informed by your beliefs. EDIT: After more research, the government's advice is that title IX never applies to protected speech alone [0]. So saying "girls are less intelligent than boys" in fact could never, in itself, violate title IX. However, the definition of harassment is so vague that it's understandable that universities can't figure out how to reconcile the first amendment with title IX. [0] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html Harassment, however, to be prohibited by the statutes within OCR's jurisdiction, must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive. Under OCR's standard, the conduct must also be considered sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program. Thus, OCR's standards require that the conduct be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position, considering all the circumstances, including the alleged victim’s age.

reamworks 11y ago

Welcome to Barack Obama's America.

smegel 11y ago

Questioning feminism has become like questioning religion in the dark ages. Let's hope more people like her continue to speak out against these persecutions.

loomio 11y ago
Did you even read the article? The author self-identifies as a feminist. Your implication that this is about feminism vs not-feminism is simplistic and missing the point.
- nawitus 11y ago
  Well, broadly speaking feminists tend to agree with these Title IX "inquisitions". Her declaring to be a feminist doesn't really mean that feminists tend to agree with her.
  - pekk 11y ago
    It is hard to say what feminists broadly speaking think when we do not have a survey of self-identified feminists in front of us.
    - EliRivers 11y ago
      Hello. I am one survey point for you. I believe women should have equal political and social rights, which makes me a feminist. I massively disagree with the general thrust of these "inquisitions" as discussed in the article, although the original Title IX, if I understand it, was meant to be about equalising opportunity[1] and not about whatever this is all about. [1] "The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs", from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titleix.php http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titleix.php
      - hoopd 11y ago
        > I am one survey point for you. I believe women should have equal political and social rights, which makes me a feminist. I also believe women should have equal political and social rights, yet I'm not at all a feminist.

venomsnake 11y ago

I think that the social discourse is moving in a place where badthink, crimethink, goodthink and so on can be used unironically. That makes me feel unsafe, chilled, terrified and having a visceral reaction.

tracker1 11y ago
Hell, just look at "gamergate" from the past year... Even without mentioning a side, or even which way you lean or assign a viewpoint a mention of the situation garners a visceral response. I myself had only seen it in passing mention a bunch on twitter a pro/anti gamergate and it took a lot of effort to even dig into wtf was going on. Even then it was absurd. I think that people need to grow the hell up, and develop a little bit of a thick skin here. I also agree with other comments, any legal charges are best met with legal council, and I don't think the law firm in question is driven by proper motives, which should be to establish if the charges have merit and what corrective actions to take if they do. It seems more about perpetuating murky legal maneuvering.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Many people do need a thicker skin. The people whose home addresses were published, along with death threats of unknown credibility (i.e. they could be credible, they could be jokes, how can you tell at a glance?) don't need a thicker skin; the rest of us need to make sure that menacing behavior doesn't happen. It's all fun and games until the death threats/doxxing happen. (That's where we go from actual civil or uncivil discourse, which should always be ok, to something that's never appropriate/ok.)
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Just to be clear, I'm not excusing or endorsing any death threats or disclosing the home addresses of anyone.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

I've not read this article, but I did read her original article. The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?) and then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases. I'm surprised anyone thought this was a good idea to publish and I'm not surprised it had repercussions (though I've not read the latest article to find out what they were and if they were an overreaction). What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students, followed by a story of an author being harassed by an editor, followed by the argument that if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life. That's not even internally consistent on several levels.

rweba 11y ago
1) "The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?)" - But should she be subjected to an investigation for writing a "naive" article? I think not, as surely the freedom of thought includes the freedom to have "wrong" opinions? (2) "then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases." -Disagree. These cases are in the public record. Why shouldn't she mention them? It's not as if she has sworn confidentiality or she had inside information. (3) "What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students" - I don't think this is an accurate summary at all. You don't have to agree with her opinion, her point was that the new attitudes she's complaining about greatly exaggerate the power of professors over students. A professor has the power to give a student a bad grade or write them a bad recommendation. A student has the power to complain about the professor to the dean/chair and give him/her a bad evaluation. If a student alleges sexual harassment or assault the professor's career could be destroyed even if the charges are not proven. Basically a professor has some power, but not some kind of unlimited power over individual students, which seems to be what is being alleged. (4) "if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life." -Nope. I would phrase it as "If students are overly coddled and swaddled they will not develop psychological coping skills to deal with a real world which is not going to exquisitely cater to their sensitivities".

paulsutter 11y ago

Anytime someone tells you that you can't have a lawyer present, you definitely need to call a lawyer. From http://www.nacua.org/onlinecourses/title_ix_coordinator_training_2012/docs/ReviewSexualAssaultPolicy_Feb2012.pdf http://www.nacua.org/onlinecourses/title_ix_coordinator_trai... "State and federal courts — not OCR — have the final say in determining relevant due process requirements. Courts are likely to give accused students a right to legal assistance" (OCR is the DoE Office of Civil Rights which controls Title IX)

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Yes, this was a red flag in the article. She's a tenured professor being attacked by a pair of anonymous malicious students who could destroy her career with one false, perverse accusation, with impunity? And the idiot administration is taking these accusers seriously enough to hire an out of town law firm to prosecute the case? She should definitely have lawyered up and threatened a big, glaringly public, embarrassing lawsuit. Bureaucrats are cowards, in general, and such a tenuous case would likely have been dropped.
tsotha 11y ago
Yeah, the minute someone, anyone, tells me I don't have a right to a lawyer is the minute I tell them "My lawyer will be in contact regarding that assertion."
mattnad 11y ago
Schools are allowed to set their own policies on legal representation in internal matters (except where stipulated by law). It's only when a dispute hits the legal system that a right to an attorney is sacrosanct.

lexx 11y ago

This is only for subscribers...

l1n 11y ago

Anyone else getting blocked by a paywall?

PeterWhittaker 11y ago
Yup.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bkurtz13 11y ago

I can't read it because of an obnoxious paywall. There needs to be a better way to monetize written content online than this...

mcherm 11y ago
http://archive.is/CwQAP http://archive.is/CwQAP
- Sheerluck_H 11y ago
  Thanks! (how'd you do that?)

shiggerino 11y ago

From the op-ed in question: "It’s not that I didn’t make my share of mistakes, or act stupidly and inchoately, but it was embarrassing, not traumatizing." [1] I think this is an important point. These kids can't tell being embarrassed from being traumatized. Presumably this woman embarrassed herself by getting too drunk to perform in bed, so she felt traumatized, and the idiotic professor was the obvious scapegoat. And when the infantilized man- and womanchildren are dragged out of their "safe spaces" to face real criticism for their embarrasing ideas, it's a traumatic experience, so who else to blame, but those who criticise them? In that mindset it's easy to imagine the op-ed as a retaliation. 1. https://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia/190351/ https://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia/190351/