Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel

[Project 429]

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/

Quote:

Here is the case that woke me, personally, up to the dangers of an unthinkingly broad, advocacy-based definition of sexual harassment. An employee, who disclosed eventually that she had been the victim of sexual abuse as a child and was ever-vigilant about her personal security, brought repeated complaints of sexual harassment against male faculty. She experienced being physically bumped by a male faculty member in the tight quarters of a copy room to be a sexual assault so humiliating that she could not communicate directly any more with that person. Hallway eye contact that lasted too long had the same effect on her — giving rise to an accusation against another faculty member for repeated unwanted sexual conduct. Eventually we realized that these complaints would keep coming in and, on investigation, keep failing to meet any reasonableness standard. It was a tragic situation — the episodes were both severe and persistent for her, and severely limited her work activities, but we could not keep entertaining the idea that they were sexual harassment.

It is not at all clear to me that this case, which occurred more than a decade ago, would be handled the same way today. Then, we were working in a framework that required sexual harassment enforcers to identify a wrongdoer. But the “prevention” branch of hostile environment policy emanating from advocates and the OCR
23. In dealing with sexual harassment, schools must “end such conduct, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.” DCL, supra note 8, at 2. OCR advises that schools’ basic obligations are to “end the sexual violence, eliminate the hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects. But a school should not wait to take steps to protect its students until students have already been deprived of educational opportunities.” Q&A, supra note 8, at 2–3.

is eroding the link between harm and wrongdoing. Increasingly, schools are being required to institutionalize prevention, to control the risk of harm, and to take regulatory action to protect the environment. Academic administrators are welcoming these incentives, which harmonize with their risk-averse, compliance-driven, and rights-indifferent worldviews and justify large expansions of the powers and size of the administration generally.

I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that.

When the duty to prevent a “sexually hostile environment” is interpreted this expansively, it is affirmatively indifferent to the restrained person’s complete and total innocence of any misconduct whatsoever.

In a related development, OCR increasingly implies that the only adequate “interim measure” that can protect a complainant in the Title IX process is the exclusion of the accused person from campus pending resolution of the complaint. To be sure, in these cases the accused may eventually be found to be responsible for violations, sometimes very serious ones. But advocates and the OCR are arguing that all complainants are trauma victims subject to continuing trauma if the persons they accuse continue in school: merely “seeing” the harasser is deemed traumatic.

Quote:

I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that. ...

When the duty to prevent a “sexually hostile environment” is interpreted this expansively, it is affirmatively indifferent to the restrained person’s complete and total innocence of any misconduct whatsoever.

Quote:

who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away

Quote:

who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away

Will decisionmakers — and in particular governance feminist decisionmakers — be able to resist this trend?

As an aside, at what point does a underprivileged group become a privileged group?

[X of Castigation]

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

[Project 429]

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

[X of Castigation]

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

No, you removed all context. Where is the context? It's in the link you so magnanimously provided... which you know perfectly well very few will read. You also know that they will see where you have placed emphasis, by cutting and bolding specific passages. I could do exactly what you did, quoting specific pieces of the article and exclude the greater whole to create a completely different sounding argument than you have presented here.

You're a bit of an amateur when it comes to misrepresenting what people say. So much so, in fact, that I am actually suspicious you aren't misrepresenting anybody and are just totally incompetent at presenting an argument; you genuinely have no idea how tone affects what you say. In which case I am deeply sorry, maybe you should get gud.

[Yoshpet]

Senator Armstrong

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

No, you removed all context. Where is the context? It's in the link you so magnanimously provided... which you know perfectly well very few will read. You also know that they will see where you have placed emphasis, by cutting and bolding specific passages. I could do exactly what you did, quoting specific pieces of the article and exclude the greater whole to create a completely different sounding argument than you have presented here.

You're a bit of an amateur when it comes to misrepresenting what people say. So much so, in fact, that I am actually suspicious you aren't misrepresenting anybody and are just totally incompetent at presenting an argument; you genuinely have no idea how tone affects what you say. In which case I am deeply sorry, maybe you should get gud.

How did he remove context when he provided a link to the full article and even posted at least five paragraphs of the article that surround the passage he highlighted? If people don't follow the link and read the article for themselves, then that's totally on them. He's not being disingenuous by providing reading material you assume people are too stupid to read.

Could you explain what you think the tone of the greater context is and why it's not represented by the huge chunk he posted in the thread? Personally, I'm not seeing it. Did you read the rest of the article?

[Project 429]

Senator Armstrong

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

No, you removed all context. Where is the context? It's in the link you so magnanimously provided... which you know perfectly well very few will read. You also know that they will see where you have placed emphasis, by cutting and bolding specific passages. I could do exactly what you did, quoting specific pieces of the article and exclude the greater whole to create a completely different sounding argument than you have presented here.

You're a bit of an amateur when it comes to misrepresenting what people say. So much so, in fact, that I am actually suspicious you aren't misrepresenting anybody and are just totally incompetent at presenting an argument; you genuinely have no idea how tone affects what you say. In which case I am deeply sorry, maybe you should get gud.

I think you're a narcissist. You're flattering yourself even as you attack other people. Most people are just too feeble minded to click a link, but you were smart enough to catch me in the act! Dohoho, how will I ever succeed in my plans for world domination with geniuses like you on the case?

[Keltoi Samurai]

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

The context of the article was one where another case of college rape was described as a witch hunt, and despite "witch hunt" being my absolute favorite term to describe court and court-like proceedings, I am not inserting my own words here, I am just reporting what I found.

from the link

Civil Liberties Framed as Indifference to Abused Women

Consider the case of Anna, a freshman at Hobart and William Smith Colleges who reported being raped at a party in the first weeks of her freshman year. The New York Times’s bombshell article exposing this case — Reporting Rape, and Wishing She Hadn’t: How One College Handled a Sexual Assault Complaint
— has become a rallying cry for reform advocates. A reasonable conclusion from the Times article is that at least some institutions of higher education systematically undervalue victims, protect wrongdoers, and expose their women students — whether through misogyny and patriarchal bias, callous indifference, or sheer incompetence — to a male-dominant hostile environment.

But read more carefully, Anna’s case is more ambiguous. To my mind, there is no question that she was raped, almost certainly by more than one man. Her injuries as reported by emergency-room personnel could not be explained any other way. The problem was figuring out how many people were involved, whether the encounters were consensual, and, if one or more sexual assaults occurred, who was responsible for them.

The prosecutor and the Colleges’ Board collected different evidence in Anna’s case, and the published record provides only glimpses of what they gathered. But it seems clear that Anna was alleging sexual assault in two settings: first at a fraternity-house party, and later at a campus-wide party at a facility known as the Barn. Anna identified her alleged assailant at the fraternity party, but the prosecutor had testimony, some of which he disclosed publicly, that led him to believe that her sexual contacts there were consensual. The Board also could have heard that or similar evidence. The Board could have decided, even on a preponderance standard, that the contacts at the fraternity were not supported by enough evidence to hold the identified student responsible for wrongdoing.

In my own assessment of the published record, the Barn is almost certainly where Anna sustained the injuries discovered later at the hospital. Through alcohol-induced memory loss, however, Anna was unable to remember what happened at the Barn; according to the Times, she could not remember being there at all. Thus, for the contacts for which evidence of sexual assault was clear, the problem of identification looms large. Three students were suspected and questioned by the Board. The identity of one of them was supported by disclosures to Anna by a bystander who was present both at the fraternity house and at the Barn. He also told the prosecutor what he saw. But he refused to testify before the Colleges’ Board. Anna testified to the bystander’s identification, but, had the Board relied solely on that, it would have imposed a finding of responsibility on a student on the basis of Anna’s report of the bystander’s report — that is, on hearsay. The publicly available information provides not even that level of certainty about the other two students who were suspected. To be sure, some of the suspected students changed their stories as the police and Colleges’ investigations proceeded, calling the credibility of their denials into question. But there was no direct evidence identifying them, or any other students present at the Barn, as Anna’s assailant there. The Board could have decided, even on a preponderance standard, that it could not hold any particular student responsible. And that does not seem to me like shoddy or biased work: it seems like a reasonable call that college and university boards should make in cases where the identity of the wrongdoer cannot be established, lest they hold students responsible for expellable offenses on a guess.

Advocacy that blazons Anna’s story as an open-and-shut case of rape makes complete sense: what happened to Anna was brutal victimization, pure and simple. A student culture in which a rape like this one can happen is seriously broken. But the story does not appear to be in fact what it stands for today in the debate over campus sexual assault: a paradigm instance of institutional failure to sanction wrongdoing. The firestorm of blame heaped on Hobart and William Smith bore an unacknowledged but alarming message: that the Colleges had to assign blame to one or more of their students despite their complete lack of direct evidence about which of them actually deserved it.

The furor over Anna’s case amounts to pressure on schools to hold students responsible for serious harm even when — precisely when — there can be no certainty about who is to blame for it. Such calls are core to every witch hunt. Speaking as a feminist governor to other feminist governors, we have to pull back from this brink.

Basically, just because a quote fails to contain every single word the quoted person has ever said does not mean it's been taken out of context. Further, by insisting that the quote in the OP is taken out of context when it clearly was not, it is in fact YOU who are trying to obscure the context of the original, which is pretty decent trolling, but not so great for an honest argument.

[X of Castigation]

Yoshpet

How did he remove context when he provided a link to the full article and even posted at least five paragraphs of the article that surround the passage he highlighted?

The piece of the article he quoted misrepresents what the author of the article was saying. Whether it was deliberate or not is up in the air, but this kind of hiding the context in plain sight, to use only a piece of what someone says when that passage adheres to one's personal biases, is a common tactic used by regressive minds like 249's.

That his argument is facile and obvious is besides the point. I take issue with the contextual and tonal misrepresentation.

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

No, you removed all context. Where is the context? It's in the link you so magnanimously provided... which you know perfectly well very few will read. You also know that they will see where you have placed emphasis, by cutting and bolding specific passages. I could do exactly what you did, quoting specific pieces of the article and exclude the greater whole to create a completely different sounding argument than you have presented here.

You're a bit of an amateur when it comes to misrepresenting what people say. So much so, in fact, that I am actually suspicious you aren't misrepresenting anybody and are just totally incompetent at presenting an argument; you genuinely have no idea how tone affects what you say. In which case I am deeply sorry, maybe you should get gud.

I think you're a narcissist. You're flattering yourself even as you attack other people. Most people are just too feeble minded to click a link, but you were smart enough to catch me in the act! Dohoho, how will I ever succeed in my plans for world domination with geniuses like you on the case?

No, that's why I said you're an amateur if you're doing it on purpose, and horribly incompetent if it's by mistake.

[Project 429]

Senator Armstrong

Yoshpet

How did he remove context when he provided a link to the full article and even posted at least five paragraphs of the article that surround the passage he highlighted?

The piece of the article he quoted misrepresents what the author of the article was saying. Whether it was deliberate or not is up in the air, but this kind of hiding the context in plain sight, to use only a piece of what someone says when that passage adheres to one's personal biases, is a common tactic used by regressive minds like 249's.

That his argument is facile and obvious is besides the point. I take issue with the contextual and tonal misrepresentation.

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

No, you removed all context. Where is the context? It's in the link you so magnanimously provided... which you know perfectly well very few will read. You also know that they will see where you have placed emphasis, by cutting and bolding specific passages. I could do exactly what you did, quoting specific pieces of the article and exclude the greater whole to create a completely different sounding argument than you have presented here.

You're a bit of an amateur when it comes to misrepresenting what people say. So much so, in fact, that I am actually suspicious you aren't misrepresenting anybody and are just totally incompetent at presenting an argument; you genuinely have no idea how tone affects what you say. In which case I am deeply sorry, maybe you should get gud.

I think you're a narcissist. You're flattering yourself even as you attack other people. Most people are just too feeble minded to click a link, but you were smart enough to catch me in the act! Dohoho, how will I ever succeed in my plans for world domination with geniuses like you on the case?

No, that's why I said you're an amateur if you're doing it on purpose, and horribly incompetent if it's by mistake.

Okay. So is there any reason I should continue to have a conversation with you?

You've said I am misrepresenting the argument. I don't agree. In response, you say I am horribly incompetent. I also disagree. What now?

[Keltoi Samurai]

Senator Armstrong

Yoshpet

How did he remove context when he provided a link to the full article and even posted at least five paragraphs of the article that surround the passage he highlighted?

The piece of the article he quoted misrepresents what the author of the article was saying. Whether it was deliberate or not is up in the air, but this kind of hiding the context in plain sight, to use only a piece of what someone says when that passage adheres to one's personal biases, is a common tactic used by regressive minds like 249's.

That his argument is facile and obvious is besides the point. I take issue with the contextual and tonal misrepresentation.

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

Project 429

Senator Armstrong

I see what you did here. You took the quoted part from the article to void it of any context whatsoever, and then copy-pasted it here knowing most readers here in the ED wouldn't bother to read the source. And so what we get is a post from you which is - typical of you - tonally different than the greater whole from which it was taken.

Because, you know, arguing that the efficacy of new programs designed to try and solve the epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses is threatened when applied unilaterally on an assumption of guilt is something anyone with a brain could surmise.

I quoted a subsection of an article. No context was removed, at all.

I also included the link to the original article. Any tonal difference that exists exists inside the theater of your own mind lest you say the article is tonally different from itself. Barring that, the quoted subsection of the article is explicitly (and that explanation is also quoted) not about the "efficacy" of programs.

No, you removed all context. Where is the context? It's in the link you so magnanimously provided... which you know perfectly well very few will read. You also know that they will see where you have placed emphasis, by cutting and bolding specific passages. I could do exactly what you did, quoting specific pieces of the article and exclude the greater whole to create a completely different sounding argument than you have presented here.

You're a bit of an amateur when it comes to misrepresenting what people say. So much so, in fact, that I am actually suspicious you aren't misrepresenting anybody and are just totally incompetent at presenting an argument; you genuinely have no idea how tone affects what you say. In which case I am deeply sorry, maybe you should get gud.

I think you're a narcissist. You're flattering yourself even as you attack other people. Most people are just too feeble minded to click a link, but you were smart enough to catch me in the act! Dohoho, how will I ever succeed in my plans for world domination with geniuses like you on the case?

No, that's why I said you're an amateur if you're doing it on purpose, and horribly incompetent if it's by mistake.

Not once does he misrepresent what the author is saying. Did you actually read the article before accusing him of taking this quote out of context?

[Project 429]

Radio static. Moving on.