David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Elsewhere (43) | Main | Elsewhere (44) »

July 29, 2011

Comments

JuliaM

That Stanford guidance is Orwellian.

" Further, under a policy like Stanford's, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other."

And yet, the woman is never 'charged' with anything, you'll note.

carbon based lifeform

Because some creeps can never be pummelled enough.

I think she got him. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she got him.

David

Julia,

“That Stanford guidance is Orwellian.”

Yes, you’d think that parents, who are generally the ones paying for this, would object to their children being schooled in overt prejudice and being taught to disregard logic, except as something suspicious and incriminating. And you’d think they might object to their children being taught that due process should be subverted in the name of “social justice” and that “taking a neutral stand between the parties is the equivalent of siding with the accused.”

You’d think those parents might feel entitled to – oh, I don’t know - a full refund. And possibly one or two firings. Maybe they aren’t aware of what’s being done with their money. But they may want to take an interest, given that similar efforts to indoctrinate are hardly uncommon.

Fred

David,

Unfortunately I think that such a loaded system will survive until someone has the stones to make a false accusation against a senior member of the university administration, e.g. the Dean. And then see how quickly they backtrack on presumed guilt.

The system is actually worse than the 50.01% probability of guilt estimation, since it is so heavily loaded against the male. They have essentially put in place a system where there is de facto no defence against an unsubstantiated allegation, since their materials for the "jury" have deemed that any defence presented is necessarily incriminating. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

This is the kind of nonsense that happens when people deem "social justice" to trump "justice". I've always been rather wary of concepts that require an adjunct to describe them, since that adjunct usually negates the normal meaning of the main concept. E.g. "social science" (funny how the adjective is often "social"...) isn't science. "redistributive justice" -- is not "justice". On the other hand, my degree course was "engineering science", which is both engineering and science, so you could equally call it simply "engineering".

Horace Dunn

Re: Stanford and sexual harassment:

"an abuser almost never 'seems like the type.'"

In other words: "in order to reach a fair and impartial assessment of the situation, you need to discard any prejudices you might have ... and adopt ours instead".

Sam

Planet of the Apes Party Fun Time.

Still laughing at Charlton Heston's disco ball underpants…

Ted S., Catskills, NY

This is the kind of nonsense that happens when people deem "social justice" to trump "justice". I've always been rather wary of concepts that require an adjunct to describe them, since that adjunct usually negates the normal meaning of the main concept. E.g. "social science" (funny how the adjective is often "social"...) isn't science.

I like to ask people what "anti-social science" (or better, "anti-social work") is.

AC1

anti-social science = Marxism.

ErisGuy

For decades I've heard the logic and math are Europhallologocentric conspiracy; that whole classes of people are guilty of offenses against social justice; etc. How can anyone possibly shocked by Stanford's sense of justice? It's been on display in Europe for most of the 20th century, and has become the commonplace sense of justice, well, everywhere. Socialism is triumphant.


David

“In other words: ‘in order to reach a fair and impartial assessment of the situation, you need to discard any prejudices you might have… and adopt ours instead’.”

Pretty much. And refusal to do so will presumably be taken as evidence of mental impropriety, especially if the refusal is expressed in a persuasive and logical way.

Henry

For some reason I'm shocked that it's Stamford.

Let's face it: attitudes that express and perpetuate inequalities are rife. Many of them affect men adversely, but there's a willful* ignorance that fails to admit this.

You've all heard the news reports as often as I have, about how "Women and children were among those killed/injured/left homeless" etc. (Yeah and probably some of that other group of mental defectives too!). Attitudes towards the sexes are different, rightly or wrongly, it's right in front of your eyes every day.

Most of us put up with it, but we shouldn't think we have to support it, especially when it creeps into law. And I have little sympathy for those who fail to see something because it suits them not to.

*not 'wilful' Mr Spell-checker!

rabbit

Wow.

She actually hauled him back into the elevator so she could pummel him some more.

He picked the wrong day to give up cypoterone.

Mark

"Unfortunately I think that such a loaded system will survive until someone has the stones to make a false accusation against a senior member of the university administration, e.g. the Dean. And then see how quickly they backtrack on presumed guilt."

That would be great to see them squirm, esp if it's a woman vs a male Dean. Hell, under their rules, if you can prove the Dean & his wife had a glass of wine at dinner followed by sex... well, that's sexual assault now.

Sam

Er, are you on holiday or something?

David

Yes. Having fun. Back next week.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll