CUNY professor accused of violating Title IX without any mention of sex

I think we learned yesterday—or at least I did—that sexual harassment of women, including physical harassment like groping, is far more prevalent than assumed.  We clearly need to do something about the issue, which means that men themselves must also recognize its prevalence. So besides admiration for the brave women who reported what happened to them, often using their real names, I was also heartened by all the good men who supported those women.  As always, the readers here are a great bunch

But I also have to report overreaction, in which accusations of sexual harassment have gone overboard. This has happened on several college campuses, and, as reason.com reports, there’s a particularly silly incident in New York (my emphasis):

A professor at the City University of New York’s Brooklyn College was ordered to make changes to his syllabus because it amounted to sexual harassment.

The professor, David Seidemann has refused to comply, and for good reason.

According to Seidemann, a university administrator expressed three grievances about the syllabus. First, and most quizzically, the grading portion of the syllabus suggests sexual harassment. It reads, “Class deportment, effort etc……. 10% (applied only to select students when appropriate).”

That’s it. That’s sexual harassment, Seidemann’s department chair claimed.

Why? No one explained it to him. I gather that the “effort, etc…” was taken the wrong way: a completely unreasonable person could presume Seidemann was suggesting that sexual favors would boost the grades of “select students.”

. . . Seidemann told [the reporter] in an email that his department chair said “the 10% section could be construed as a prelude to sexual harassment,” and had to be changed at once.

This order apparently came from the Director of Diversity Investigations and Title IX Enforcement. In the course of Seidemann’s interactions with the director, he realized something quite stunning: there was no record of anyone actually complaining about the syllabus. The university had apparently launched this investigation on its own.

Seidemann was also initially in trouble for writing in his syllabus, “This classroom is an ‘unsafe space’ for those uncomfortable with viewpoints with which they may disagree: all constitutionally protected speech is welcome.” But the director eventually conceded this was fine.

Apparently the troubles were compounded by Seidemann using triangles instead of quotations marks around terms like “unsafe space”.

This is how far it’s gone in some places, and part of the problem is that the Title IX guidelines are confusing and even a bit draconian. If you look at the link in the previous sentence, you’ll find the story of a male student expelled from the University of Colorado at Pueblo because someone reported that his girlfriend had a hickey on her neck. That was reported as rape, and even the girlfriend’s testimony that the relationship was purely consensual couldn’t prevent the expulsion. That’s the kind of evidence that Title IX takes as sufficient cause for punishment. I predicted, and it’s now happening, that colleges will now incur a spate of lawsuits because of this kind of bizarre and unfair punishment. And that, too, is the story of David Seidemann and his “selective grading.” (To be sure, I wouldn’t have applied that standard to “select students”, but maybe Seidemann meant that students who misbehaved would be penalized.”

 

h/t: Patrick

62 Comments

  1. GBJames
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    sub

  2. eric
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Seidemann was also initially in trouble for writing in his syllabus, “This classroom is an ‘unsafe space’ for those uncomfortable with viewpoints with which they may disagree: all constitutionally protected speech is welcome.” But the director eventually conceded this was fine.</blockquote

    How…Catch-22. So, evidently, leftists would like the university to require professors to give out trigger warnings. But declares it harassment when they do.

    Well, that does make a strange sort of sense. If we premise that their real goal is not warnings but eliminating content they disapprove of, then instituting damned-if-you-warn-damned-if-you-don’t rules is a pretty effective way to do that.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      One of suspicious nature would read that as a slightly snarky line about the issue of safe spaces. I may be a tad suspicious, since that is how I read it although it certainly did not cross any lines.

      • mikeyc
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

        Could be and if so, maybe the admin who felt the other part (about deportment and effort) was harassment did so because they couldn’t justify a harassment complaint about the trigger warning, so manufactured one out of the other.

        But then I am probably being overly suspicious (and ungenerous).

  3. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I think what this should signal to most of us is that people in general are not really capable of handling this issue (sexual harassment). It’s one of those things that should be handled by the professionals. Just like when you need a lawyer or need your car worked on.

    Some time back I briefly explained what actions were taken by the company I use to work for to get sexual harassment under control and nearly eliminated from the company. Almost any large firm and certainly the Universities could do the same. It is not that hard once you see it in place and working. Now if you are also discussing sexual assault and rape, that must go directly to the police.

    Think of the problems in the Catholic church. Can the church officials hand them….No. It must be handled by the legal system and the police.

    Just to finish – I remember our company held classes all the time on sexual harassment and tried to do it through internal education. You can not do it this way. It is a waste of time. Either you get serious or you get nowhere.

    • eric
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      this should signal to most of us is that people in general are not really capable of handling this issue (sexual harassment). It’s one of those things that should be handled by the professionals

      Au contraire, in this case the “people in general” (i.e., the students) didn’t complain about the syllabus, while legal professionals employed by the administration did.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        I should probably just stay out of this conversation as the people here in the posting are not professionals or experts in sexual harassment or at least do not appear to be. I know nothing about directors of diversity or Title IX.

        The EEO trained investigators within the legal department of the institution are the only ones I am familiar with. They don’t give classes in sexual harassment to students or persons in general that work for firms. They investigate and prosecute sexual assault allegations. They are not in the teaching field or training business.

        The general student population could be educated in regards to sexual harassment as could the teaching staff but they should not have anything to do with handling sexual harassment other than turning in reports to the professional who do the investigations. You cannot handle this issue within the chain of command at any institution. That is only a guarantee of failure.

  4. Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    It is such a difficult subject because it is not black and white. Sexual harrassment has so many gray areas that it is very difficult for women to come out (who have actually been harassed) and speak out because they feel that the burden of proof is completely on their shoulders.

    • mikeyc
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      When some accuses another of harassment (or anything, really) whose shoulders should the burden of proof be upon?

      • Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        Good question. Sounds like it should be logical right? But personally, I have been harrassed so many times I have lost count. I am a middle-age, average mother and wife…nothing special, but it doesn’t stop men from making inappropriate comments in the grocery store. Try to prove that one without a video recording the incident. The reason so many do not accuse harassment is for that reason alone. I honestly don’t have an answer but I know it cannot all lie on the shoulders of the victim whether it be a man or a woman.

        • mikeyc
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

          I agree that is likely the reason so many go un-reported. Certainly the responsibility for NOT harassing you should always be on the shoulders of those men. But accusing someone of something -anything- is altogether different. It is unfortunate that people feel that because they might not be believed they don’t report crimes, but our legal system would be utterly worthless if the burden of proof is on those accused of the crime.

          It is men who harass who need to change, not the way our legal system is supposed to work.

          • Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

            So many things that would not need a legal system if people just acted like human beings and treated each other with respect. Yep….I’m being the idealistic dreamer again!🙂 Thank you for the perspective.

          • darrelle
            Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

            “It is men who harass who need to change, not the way our legal system is supposed to work.”

            That phrase “supposed to work,” identifies a major failing in the system. The legal system is administered by people and those people are part of the same culture in which unequal treatment compared to men and mistreatment of women have been a societal norm since, well, probably forever.

            Regardless of what the laws state woman are still much to often screwed by the system when it comes to sexual assault and abuse cases because of patriarchal societal norms. It’s getting better I think, but it seems premature to claim that the system doesn’t need to change. If nothing else the way the system is applied needs to change. All the cogs in the machine, from judges down to police officers, need to do their jobs without any hint of “boys will be boys, she shouldn’t have been wearing that and doing that there” types of biases.

            • mikeyC
              Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

              Agreed, Darrelle, but what you have done? Scrap the innocent-until-proven-guilty underpinning of our legal system because some of those involved are “boys”?

              I do think the system needs to change in many ways, not least of which is within some of the people working in it. But the conversation here was about the burden of proof. If we change our legal system (and how it reflects in our society) such that the burden of proof falls onto the accused, we will have scrapped the one thing about it that makes it worthwhile. IMO, of course.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

                I absolutely agree with MikeyC there.

                People have to recognise that the law is neither omniscient nor infallible and sometimes wrongs occur that cannot be righted, due to lack of evidence. Most burglars ‘get away with it’. But even then there are, sadly, too many wrongful convictions (that we know about).

                Changing the emphasis to ‘guilty unless proven innocent’ would be horrendous and nobody would be safe.

                cr

              • darrelle
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

                No way, I do not endorse changing “innocent until proven guilty.” I’ve no argument with that.

              • Posted October 23, 2016 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

                I agree that there are many positive aspects of the legal system and we are fortunate to live in a country that even has one! Innocent until proven guilty is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, cases of any physical abuse, without visual or DNA proof, are extremely hard to prove.

  5. Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    I agree that part of the syllabus can be considered awkward, but sexual harassment??

  6. CJColucci
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    I doubt that anyone trying to manage a classroom really means to allow “all constitutionally protected speech.”

    • Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      You certainly couldn’t do it with 8th graders.
      You’ll never see such tremendous enthusiasm as when a middle school student has been given carte blanche to say inappropriate things.

  7. Tom
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    The Grand Title “Director of Diversity Investigation…..” etc looks like something Charles Dickens would have loved to have written.
    I imagine that this character lurks in the University Circumlocution Office

  8. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    I have to admit that the line “Class deportment, effort etc……(%10%) (applied only to select students when appropriate)..” is a little odd. Deportment generally means attitude, demeanor, bearing, or appearance. I expect it means that some deduction in grade may be applied if a student repeatedly comes in late, leaves early, surfs the web during class, etc. But it has a funny ring to it by itself.

    • eric
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. I read it as a very stilted way of saying “don’t disrupt my lecture or I dock you points.” Don’t interrupt the professor or other students, don’t walk in late talking on your cell phone, etc…

      Now arguably, its still bad to dock points on that. If someone is disruptive, kick them out of the lecture and be done with it. But if the Prof wants to give 10% of the class grade for sitting quietly and attentively in class, that seems more like an easy gimmie to the students, not sexual harassment.

    • mikeyc
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Deportment.

      Many years ago while teaching a lab section of undergraduate biochem I noticed some students coming to class in their pajamas. I told the class that in addition to being graded on their understanding of the material and the way they did their assignments, they would also be graded off if they showed up to lab in pajamas. It is disrespectful to the class and the instructors. The department head backed me up, no students complained and from that time onward no one showed up in pajamas.

      Different times.

      • eric
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

        Geez, remove the stick!🙂 If it’s safe, what’s the problem? As a lab TA I was a hardass when it came to open-toed shoes, wearing lab coat, goggles, and gloves when needed. Flip-flops in summer were probably the most recurrent issue (go home, come back with real shoes, or you don’t do the lab). But other than that, why would I care?

        I have no idea how pajamas “disrepsect” me.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      I think that one was badly expressed too. If the professor had made it clear what he was referring to it would have made all the difference.

      The “select students” is problematic as well. When I first read it, before I got to that bit, I thought everyone would have 10% of their grade applied to stuff like attitude.

      It can be interpreted that a student with an exemplary attitude etc will get an extra 10% as well, though I would not have considered that sexual harassment.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        I took it to mean that students could get up to a 10% bump in their grade by attending class regularly, being prepared, and actively participating in classroom discussions. That’s the way a professor can both provide an incentive for productive classroom participation and determine that a student has attained a mastery of the course material beyond what may be reflected in the student’s written test scores. Those seem to me both to be legitimate goals.

        Admittedly, it could’ve been written more clearly. But keep in mind that no student seems to have been confused by the syllabus, or to have interpreted it an an invitation to anything untoward.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

          I agree with all, but that last paragraph I think is particularly pertinent.

  9. Diana MacPherson
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Good grief – I guess I better not ever write or say effort ever again or people will get the wrong idea. What’s next?

  10. Pliny the in Between
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps they should study this site. Yesterday’s discussion on sexual assault could be considered a great example of how to create safe spaces – Opening important dialogue among a group of individuals who have established an open style of discussion moderated by someone not afraid to enforce Da Roolz in order to keep the conversation productive.

    • Kevin
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      This site also illustrates how it can democratically reinforce Da Roolz. More than training, organizations can learn to employ long term strategies of openness and fairness and familiarity so that ‘weeds’ don’t have much space to grow.

  11. Jenny Haniver
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Re Eric’s first post:
    “How…Catch-22. So, evidently, leftists would like the university to require professors to give out trigger warnings. But declares it harassment when they do.
    Well, that does make a strange sort of sense. If we premise that their real goal is not warnings but eliminating content they disapprove of, then instituting damned-if-you-warn-damned-if-you-don’t rules is a pretty effective way to do that.”
    I think you’re spot on. Something had been nagging at me about these trigger warnings (which do have their place in certain situations) but your observation seems so obvious, once stated. As my father would have said, “If it had been a snake, it would have bitten you.”

    This is insane. Furthermore, after yesterday’s responses to the post “Question to Women Readers,” the school’s response collapses distinctions and turns damned near anything and everything into sexual harassment, sexual assault. I wonder why no one has dredged up the names of Catharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, the two Twisted Sisters who waged scorched-earth social-purity-feminist battles against sexual harassment and pornography back in the ’80s and ’90s. They are surely the most recent fore-mothers of this insanity in the 21st century, which, to me, strangely coexists with the alt-sex movement, whose most prominent proponent is Dan Savage, wherein all manner of sexual fetishes and no-holds barred sexual practices are extolled by men and women alike (and everyone in-between).

  12. Craw
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    If you were going to fake grades for sex you wouldn’t advertise it in the syllabus would you? You’d make hints to particular students. (Which does happen.)

    • Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      “If you were going to fake grades for sex you wouldn’t advertise it in the syllabus would you?”

      Well you might, but you’d do so in a very subtle way. In a way that you could argue it was ridiculous for someone to get that impression from what you said.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

        I’m shocked school administrators think college kids could be persuaded to give it up for 10% of their grade. I mean, what’s that do, get you from a solid C to a B-minus, maybe? Whatever happened to “A for effort”?

        • Craw
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

          When I was in grad school once of the students in the Operating Systems course was *living* with the prof. Her mark was 100%. This was 30 years ago, and I hope standards are higher today (she would likely get 110%).

  13. Martin Levin
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    “Director of DiversityInvestigations” is right out of Kafka, or Orwell.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      I always loved the one from ‘Robocop’ – prisons were “Institutions for the Morally Challenged.”

  14. nickswearsky
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    When writing exams, I am always amazed at how well students can misunderstand well written questions that I find perfectly clear. There’s always “well, I thought you meant….” explanations that follow. What happened to “mean what you say and say what you mean”? This is a bit over the top, tho.

  15. Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    “Seidemann told [the reporter] in an email that his department chair said “the 10% section could be construed as a prelude to sexual harassment,” and had to be changed at once.”

    OK time to play devil’s advocate, or at least look at possible motivation of the department chair given we don’t know his side of it. On the face of it it seems ridiculous, but is it not possible that women have in fact offered sexual favors to professors after having misconstrued such statements, and then later sued, or even just said they had misconstrued the statement after their advance was rejected? Or is it completely ridiculous to bend over backwards given the litigious nature of our country to avoid anything that could be misconstrued? And what harm is there if the professor just changed the wording? Making a big issue of it seems a bit much as well.

    • Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

      I also wanted to add that I saw nothing that amounted to the professor, as the headline of the article states, being “accused of sexual harassment”. The only quote we have from the Director of Diversity Investigations and Title IX Enforcement, is “the 10% section could be construed as a prelude to sexual harassment,” which amounts to someone saying to someone else “you maybe shouldn’t call women honey because they might perceive it as sexual harassment”. I suspect Seidemann has a bone to pick, and is intentionally turning a teapot into a tempest to forward an agenda.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        Good points Mike. As I said above, I think the whole thing is badly written anyway, and having something apply to “select students” is always going to be a problem. I bet he’s tried to dock a student in the past and was forced not to because he hadn’t made it clear that could happen. So this might be an ongoing battle between a curmudgeon and authority.

        • Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

          “So this might be an ongoing battle between a curmudgeon and authority.”

          I think his passive aggressive use of the term “unsafe space” to take a jab at the idea of safe spaces shows prior bias. Given that I have a difficult time taking his characterizations of the incident seriously. I think it’s more likely that the Director of Diversity was just giving him friendly criticism, though perhaps unreasonable, and his reaction was overblown. I’d really like to see the emails.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, me too. It would, as you say, throw a lot of light on the situation.

      • Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        I agree in regard to the headline of the article. It’s an example of headline hyperbole clickbait. Upon reading the headline one gets the impression that Seidemann is being hauled before a disciplinary committee with his carrer in the balance. The air comes out of that particular balloon quickly when we learn in the first paragraph that Seidemann has merely been told to make chamnges to the syllabus. I don’t understand with the context provided how that passge constitutes a prelude to sexual harassment, but it’s vague and open to interpretation. I gather he was trying to warn students to behave appropriately in class or it will have a negative impact on thier grade. I use that tactic in my classroom as well. I don’t write syllabi for college students, but I need to state policies much more clearly than that if my students are to comply with them and Seidemann was being too coy. I don’t wish to specualte about Seidemann’s agenda, but Reason is a libertarian publication with an editorial staff that feels political correctness is the greatest threat to western civilization in the world today. I, like many other readers here, think limiting free speech and free inquiry so as not to hurt feelings is a very bad thing. Reason, and by extension the alt right (an exercise in branding if ever there were one) seem to think the fate of the republic pivots on this one issue alone, whcih could go a long way towards explaining the overwrought and misleading headline.

        • Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

          “I, like many other readers here, think limiting free speech and free inquiry so as not to hurt feelings is a very bad thing.”

          I agree completely, and I think there are enough incidents demonstrating that that’s happening that it make highlighting somewhat questionable cases unnecessary.

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    If Kafka were to write The Trial today, Josef K would be under investigation for a violation of Title IX.

  17. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    “the Director of Diversity Investigations”

    Is it me, or are these titles getting progressively more Orwellian?

    The day before yesterday it was the U of Fla with its “Bias Education and Response team.”

    They’re starting to sound like the titles for Soviet political commissars in Stalinist Russia. What’s next, “the Committee to Investigate Counterrevolutionary Propaganda”? Or do they have that already?

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      How about the ‘House Un-American Activities Committee”?

      Oh, that’s been done already? How did that turn out?

      cr

      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:28 am | Permalink

        😀

  18. Alpha Neil
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    “Class deportment, effort etc……. 10% (applied only to select students when appropriate).”
    OH MY GOD THAT IS SO HOT!!!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, that’s some purple prose. Lot hotter than 50 Shades, anyway.

  19. mikeyc
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    After following the links in the article, the good Dr. hasn’t publish his syllabus; all we have are are a couple of quotes from it provided by him. That’s a bit frustrating.

    I really don’t doubt his account, but I must say I am always astonished when people who have a grievance like this then fail to disclose the offending document. It does make one wonder if anything germane has been left out.

  20. Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    I don’t detect any sexual harassment in the syllabus, but granting up to 10% of the grade for the effort? That’s clearly ableism.

    • Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:42 am | Permalink

      It’s effortism. If you start rewarding people for putting in an effort you discriminate against people who don’t give a shit.

  21. Dale Franzwa
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    Brooklyn College was my old school. Retired in the early ’90s. Excellent school overall. Had some terrific colleagues. Some great students. I, myself, once had a problem with a vaguely written syllabus concerning end-of-semester grade calculation. Some students complained to the department chair when the grades came out. The Appointments committee investigated the issue thoroughly. As a result, I rewrote the syllabus for next semester and that was it. I wasn’t asked to change anyone’s grade. That’s the way such issues should be handled. But this Director of Diversity Investigations? What the hell is that? We didn’t (to my knowledge) have one when I was there.

  22. somer
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    Completely ridiculous – reading sex into it when there was none – though sounds like somewhat odd criteria for marking.

    Totally agree with the article and totally agree Title IX on harassment should instead require educational institutions to refer serious sexual harassment cases or sexual assault cases to the police, not deal with it themselves. That said, there needs to be reform on the criminal system re sexual assault cases – in NZ only 1% of rape charges brought to court are successful. I think the standard still needs to be beyond reasonable doubt but wonder if an inquisitorial process would be better than adversarial process for such cases – with judges with a known misogynist record on such things being disqualified from judging on such matters.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:18 am | Permalink

      Just 1%? That’s an extraordinary figure and it certainly means the system needs reform, though possibly not in the direction you were contemplating? All I can see is a lot of innocent defendants being needlessly put through the anguish of a trial on very severe charges for nothing.

      Certainly the case in the one rape trial I was on the jury for. We hadn’t discussed it till the end of proceedings but we (50/50 male / female) were all immediately unanimous for Not Guilty – which in itself says something, you rarely get 12-0 straight off. (We felt the complainant – who claimed it happened while she was drunk and asleep – had been pushed into complaining by a relative. There was no forensic evidence _at all_. We considered it most likely that she had a nightmare and nothing whatever had actually happened.) The only thing we disagreed on was whether we should go back in immediately to underline the unanimity of our verdict, or give it half an hour so it didn’t seem we’d been too casual. We spent the half hour agreeing the wording of a rider to the judge that we felt, considering the lack of evidence, that the case should never have been brought.

      I had some slight sympathy for the complainant, I felt she had been railroaded by a domineering relative; the women on the jury were less charitable.

      An anecdote is not data but the fact the police prosecuted on such a flimsy case suggests they may, for reasons of political correctness(?), prosecute in cases where, if the charge was, say, burglary, and the evidence was similarly flimsy, they would never waste their time.

      cr

  23. Paul D.
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Why has Title IX not been struck down as unconstitutional? Vague laws that suppress speech would seem to be clear violations of the first amendment.

  24. Mike
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    As we evolve is our capacity for Common Sense decreasing the more ludicrous the situation becomes.? Seems so to me.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: