Betsy DeVos is no liberal's idea of an enlightened mind.
But, as Trumplings are apt to do, she is very good at finding the seams in the liberal armor and striking there.
She has attacked the campus rules governing responses to accusations of sexual assault and harassment.
Listening to a Harvard professor on NPR, who found herself unable to avoid saying the words, "I have to agree, DeVos is right on this one," Mad Dog had to begrudgingly agree.
As the professor described the process, where a boy accused of sexual assault, rape or harassment was often called to a meeting without prior notice, unable to confront his accuser, unable to even get a clear statement of the offense, it sounded like something out of an old movie, a "Darkness at Noon," the ultimate in authoritarian nightmare, where the accused has no rights, no chance to defend himself.
This connects to the #MeToo phenomenon, hard to call it a "movement," more of a "cultural revolution" redux, where the dogma, never to be questioned, is that when a woman accuses a man of rape, fondling, anything really, she is to be believed, which means, ipso facto, if the man denies it, he is to be disbelieved.
Few things have done more to discredit liberal figures than the blind embrace of "the woman is always right," credo. This stance simply rejects the whole notion of fairness, of the importance of discussion, of cross examination.
"Oh, but you then traumatize the victim twice!" is the cry.
Well, what of the trauma to the accused?
If the woman cannot be in the same room as the accused, because she is such a delicate flower, where does that leave justice?
Mad Dog well remembers the first case of "date rape" reported decades ago, in his college alumni monthly, and the few details of the event raised multiple alarm bells in his own mind about whether or not a rape had occurred: Not the least of which was the fact the girl accuser, awakening in the boy's dorm room bed the next morning wrote down her actual, real phone number and gave it to him, presumably so they could repeat the experience. But when she got back to her dorm room, she decided, after speaking with her friends, she had been raped. The boy was expelled from the college, not tried by a criminal court, where rules of evidence, cross examination would have been available. He was tried in a Star Chamber at the college and expelled. In his junior year.
Such things do more than hurt individuals caught in the snare of these events, they utterly destroy the trustworthiness of the liberals, mostly women, who defend and espouse them.
The sine qua non of the liberal mind has got to be an openness of mind, a willingness to hear the other side. Aude alteram partem.
When you lose that, you lose everything.
I would argue the women who embrace the current mess governing campus sexual assault charges are not true liberals. They are Gospel Zealots, Strident Infallibles. But they are not any with whom true liberals should want to be associated.
But, as Trumplings are apt to do, she is very good at finding the seams in the liberal armor and striking there.
She has attacked the campus rules governing responses to accusations of sexual assault and harassment.
Listening to a Harvard professor on NPR, who found herself unable to avoid saying the words, "I have to agree, DeVos is right on this one," Mad Dog had to begrudgingly agree.
As the professor described the process, where a boy accused of sexual assault, rape or harassment was often called to a meeting without prior notice, unable to confront his accuser, unable to even get a clear statement of the offense, it sounded like something out of an old movie, a "Darkness at Noon," the ultimate in authoritarian nightmare, where the accused has no rights, no chance to defend himself.
This connects to the #MeToo phenomenon, hard to call it a "movement," more of a "cultural revolution" redux, where the dogma, never to be questioned, is that when a woman accuses a man of rape, fondling, anything really, she is to be believed, which means, ipso facto, if the man denies it, he is to be disbelieved.
Few things have done more to discredit liberal figures than the blind embrace of "the woman is always right," credo. This stance simply rejects the whole notion of fairness, of the importance of discussion, of cross examination.
"Oh, but you then traumatize the victim twice!" is the cry.
Well, what of the trauma to the accused?
If the woman cannot be in the same room as the accused, because she is such a delicate flower, where does that leave justice?
Mad Dog well remembers the first case of "date rape" reported decades ago, in his college alumni monthly, and the few details of the event raised multiple alarm bells in his own mind about whether or not a rape had occurred: Not the least of which was the fact the girl accuser, awakening in the boy's dorm room bed the next morning wrote down her actual, real phone number and gave it to him, presumably so they could repeat the experience. But when she got back to her dorm room, she decided, after speaking with her friends, she had been raped. The boy was expelled from the college, not tried by a criminal court, where rules of evidence, cross examination would have been available. He was tried in a Star Chamber at the college and expelled. In his junior year.
Such things do more than hurt individuals caught in the snare of these events, they utterly destroy the trustworthiness of the liberals, mostly women, who defend and espouse them.
The sine qua non of the liberal mind has got to be an openness of mind, a willingness to hear the other side. Aude alteram partem.
When you lose that, you lose everything.
I would argue the women who embrace the current mess governing campus sexual assault charges are not true liberals. They are Gospel Zealots, Strident Infallibles. But they are not any with whom true liberals should want to be associated.
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteI agree, some recalibration of the process colleges use to address accusations of sexual misconduct is warranted given that the pendulum has yet to reach a fair mid point. It began at one extreme, with a woman receiving little to no support from the school and there being no formal grievance process for this serious issue. For too long and in far too many instances, the school's lack of response sent the message that it was best that the woman keep such accusations to herself.
In recent years we've arrived at the opposite end of the spectrum, where accused often equals guilty and the statements of the woman are treated as if they'd been handed out from a burning bush. Somewhere in between these two extremes are policies that schools, as well as businesses, can adopt that will be fair and supportive to both parties. Justice. If Betsy DeVos can help facilitate that she'll be useful for something.
Also, I can't disagree with your portrayal of some of those who fail to see the crucial need for a middle ground in all of this as zealots and decidedly not liberal. There seems to be another agenda at play here, perhaps a very worthy one, but those ends don't justify unfair means.
Maud
Ms Maud,
ReplyDeleteToday's NYT (online) carries a load of letters about this DeVos move, many of which argue this topic far beyond and more eloquently than my poor capabilities. It's good to see I'm not the only liberal stewing over this illiberal system.
Your point, that the other side is many women/girls felt violated and concluded they were not going to be helped to achieve justice, is an important one.
Part of the trouble is the conflation of any and all sexual aggression with rape.
If I read the letters properly, what most people are saying is, "If you say you were raped, then you have to go to the police." If you say you do not want to go to the police, then you cannot go to some friendlier group designed to take your side. No judgment should begin with the idea the judges will take anyone's side.