What started out good leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
“The DeVos regulations were an example of an immoral administration doing the moral thing.”
Then just before entering the 2020 presidential race, Joe Biden was accused by several women of unwanted touching and hair sniffing. Biden didn’t quite apologize, but explained that all his physical contacts were well-meant gestures of friendship and support. This was followed by a more serious allegation of assault, a charge he credibly denied.
Characterizing DeVos refs as a moral thing done bumpy an immoral administration is nasty and unnecessary. Such a sweeping description of the Trump administration is reckless and wrong. It’s gratuitous and undermines the author’s credibility.
Similarly, claiming that Biden credibly denied a serious allegation of assault is little more than taking Biden‘s word for it. We’ve learned that’s a dangerous thing to do. “I know nothing about my son’s business dealings”. “The laptop is Russian disinformation”.
Serious false denials about serious matters shows that Biden’s “credible denials” that comprised of little more then a general denial bereft of detail or evidence are far from credible and far from the standard that the prior “immoral administration was held to”.
Regardless of one's view of Trump, Betsy DeVos was his best appointment. She removed this awful Obama "guidance" (which was akin to a mob boss "suggesting" courses of actions lest consequences be suffered) and defended the right to due process. In addition to that and equally important, DeVos is about the only one in government who thinks the job of education is actually about educating children.
Unlike the hypocrites who laud the public school system yet send their own kids to private schools, she is well aware of the failings of the cesspools of government run public shools and is trying to change them for the betterment of the kids.
“This was followed by a more serious allegation of assault, a charge he credibly denied”
I have no idea if Biden did what he was accused by that woman. My question is who decides what is credible or not? I saw that at the Kavanaugh hearing as well, when he was “credibly accused” of sexual assault. If no one else who is claimed to be a witness agrees, and the FBI looks into and finds no evidence, why is it still credible? Similarly, if the only people who looked into Bidens accuser are openly biased reporters who were looking to support their candidate last election, why is his denial credible? Has it been investigated by the police?
My point is that the author writes this excellent piece that is essentially about the lack of due process, and then goes and paints a woman who accused Biden of sexual assault as a liar, without due process of any kind. If the author is suggesting that journalists have decided it’s not credible, my question is why should I listen? When did society decide that journalists get to make that call, especially at a time in history where most journalists from legacy outlets openly admit they take sides, which they do not need to do because we can all tell by their work that they no longer attempt to control that bias?
Again, I have no idea whether Biden did that or not. Looking at his public behavior for the last 40 years and the values he taught his son (looking at you Hunter) and his ability to lie without hesitation (a truly bipartisan trait), I could easily see a misunderstanding, if not actual sexual assault. Who knows?
My overall point is the author engages in exactly the behavior she reports in this article. She has decided that she gets to make that call. It hasn’t been investigated by anyone with subpoena power or other intrusive police powers. Biden has denied it, so is that what makes the denial credible? Has any witness gone under oath?
This is what irritates me about modern times. Yes, the author is able to be objective about this issue, but somehow in doing so, still manages to remind me that young journalists can’t shut their bias off, and they still believe they get to make the call on what’s credible and what’s not. It’s like a tic. So this article is excellent otherwise, but it still has the stank of open bias that one would expect from an author who worked at NYT, Slate, the Atlantic, ect. It’s not a coincidence she worked exclusively at openly non neutral outlets I would assume. And it shows. Please make it not show especially when you toss a nugget around like that in a story about due process.
I think you are missing the obvious upside here. I have always wanted to own a college, I've always wanted to be rich, and I've always wanted to eviscerate the Leftist influence on our universities. This gives us the opportunity to do all three at once. I am willing to donate generously to a fund to sue the pants off any college (after affirmative pants-removal consent, of course) that uses these unconstitutional measures against any American citizen, while also generating a suit that can be taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, this court which seems to be rather kindly disposed to the rights of citizens vis à vis the Feds. What's not to like?
In a different vein, this is precisely why young men stay home, play video games, and watch porn. The girls are prettier, they never say no, and they will never drag you into an inquisition should they have buyer's remorse at a later date. It now appears that the single greatest threat to Western civilization is not global "warming," nor population explosion, but rather population depletion. (Bricker and Ibbitsen) Don't think that the Titular President Asterisk administration, whose ultimate goal is a totalitarian world government, is ignorant of the effect of this new abortion they are foisting on young Americans. Population "control" is part and parcel of their plan, and when the boys are afraid to touch the girls, well, you figure it out.
Regardless, the end result will be fewer men in higher education. There will also be more social turmoil, distrust, and fear.
In short, these policies are unmistakably designed to create strife and uncertainty. Therefore, that is the intent. You cannot create utopia until you burn it all down.
Trump never gets credit. You, as all Trump haters do, make sure to disavow anything positive that the former president did. Even if you hate it, it was a Trump administration policy. It was good policy. Betsy DaVos was a Trump appointee and although she was tortured throughout her time as Education Secretary, she did a good job. It won’t kill you, or make you less credible to say it. This whole piece is really good, except the Trump hate and the Biden love. Nobody’s asking you to vote red, but writing a fair, balanced piece isn’t asking too much.
As for the new sexual harassment policy, God protect our men.
This change in policy is nothing short of horrifying. I was not previously aware that a third party could make an accusation that would be acted upon by campus administrators, regardless of the wishes of the two people actually involved.
Under these rules, it seems as if male students are better off not having sex with female fellow students at all. Or maybe they can claim to be trans, which--according to trans activists--makes lesbian women obligated to have sex with them. Kind of an extreme way to get laid. But this policy invites extreme responses.
I find this to be a perfect example of the the hypocrisy of modern feminism.
On the one hand they stand up and talk about women's agency and about how women are tough and smart and just as capable as men.
BUT...then they turn around and talk about how they are all victims who need special protections.
AND.....despite their rejection of the idea, popular in earlier ages, that women need to be protected and that they are wholesome, innocent and should be put on pedestals, they somehow manage to act as though women are incapable of immoral, destructive, selfish behavior. Further, they will readily talk about how women are suffering all kinds of mental issues today but then refuse to consider that those issues could translate into cruel or anti-social behavior, such as falsely claiming that they are victims of sexual harassment or rape.
Imagine what Camille Paglia would say about all this.
Women wanted liberation, equal rights, free sexuality. Of course that meant risk, hurt feelings, rejection, hook ups that didn’t go well. But they were free, and freedom doesn’t guarantee nice.
Now we have a generation of helicopter kids. They can’t tolerate freedom, risk, hurt. They need nanny to swoop in and make it all better. And our Leviathan progressives want to do that.
"(A)n immoral administration doing the moral thing."
Trump is bad! Bad, bad, bad! But considering the Democratic Party is in favor of abortion to the moment of birth, providing hormone treatment to children, an open border, a weak foreign policy that led to the collapse of Afghanistan and war in Ukraine, high gas prices, and inflation... how immoral was his administration compared to the current one?
I think Victor Davis Hanson's assessment of Trump is the most accurate. His accomplishments will never be appreciated because of how he has been popularly characterized.
Donald Trump is John Wayne from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
Interesting to explore how our “hair sniffer” in chief got to be associated with such deeply psychopathic prurient involvement in “due-process.” Seen this issue as a long history with deviance a la Harvard, universities, Epstein, Gates, Clinton, Biden and company. Kind of forget but it wasn’t long ago that Biden tweeted that it wasn’t unusual for good folks to get caught with pictures of unmentionables on their phones. This guy and all his associates are certifiable. No contest.
I was tangentially connected to someone who went through the nightmare of the campus sex police. He was a Black guy who was the first person in his family in generations to to college. He had sex with a well-to-do white girl who later decided she hadn’t really wanted to do it. He was expelled, sued, and won a big court verdict. The jury was out I think less than 15 minutes. There was video—which I don’t think he got a chance to see or argue during the University investigation—that made it clear as day that the girl had not been blackout drunk as she claimed.
The courts can fix a wrongful expulsion on paper, but unfortunately they can’t come close to making a wrongfully expelled student whole. Missing a year or more of college, having your friends graduate without you, the nightmare of a false investigation (which in his case was probably a classic example of racially motivated sex accusations, one of the uglier parts of Jim Crow that is resurgent under the Obama Title IX regs), having a gap in your resume you have to explain for your next ten years of job interviews, the stigma of being expelled for sexual misconduct… nothing a court can do can fix that.
Hopefully universities will wake up to the legal liability they face for wrongful expulsions and will voluntarily keep more robust protections for the accused than the regulations require.
If the Trump regs were an example of an immoral administration doing the moral thing, what would you call the BIden example on Title IX?
Also, just curious, since we're assigning modifiers to each administration, but what would $2/gal gas, low inflation, wages outpacing inflation for blue and brown collar workers, and a (relatively speaking, anyway) secure border be an example of: a moral or immoral administration? And what would the opposite or diametrically opposed outcomes be an example of? Moral? Immoral? Super moral?
Or, as anyone with a brain can infer, doesn't matter because the author's north star is her "feelings" and one President makes her "feel" bad for reasons no sane person can articulate, but another President makes her "feel" good for reasons that are completely belied by reality - like the reality of the article she just authored.
My boys should not have to live in fear of everything they say and do. They have a responsibility to treat "women" (which really means anyone) with respect but should not have to walk on eggshells to do so. In my opinion, the REAL victims of sexual assault will be undermined by a whole lot of "guilty by affirmation" rather than an appropriate trial. It serves neither the real victims nor the young men who are found "guilty" because a school administrator says so.
What started out good leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
“The DeVos regulations were an example of an immoral administration doing the moral thing.”
Then just before entering the 2020 presidential race, Joe Biden was accused by several women of unwanted touching and hair sniffing. Biden didn’t quite apologize, but explained that all his physical contacts were well-meant gestures of friendship and support. This was followed by a more serious allegation of assault, a charge he credibly denied.
Characterizing DeVos refs as a moral thing done bumpy an immoral administration is nasty and unnecessary. Such a sweeping description of the Trump administration is reckless and wrong. It’s gratuitous and undermines the author’s credibility.
Similarly, claiming that Biden credibly denied a serious allegation of assault is little more than taking Biden‘s word for it. We’ve learned that’s a dangerous thing to do. “I know nothing about my son’s business dealings”. “The laptop is Russian disinformation”.
Serious false denials about serious matters shows that Biden’s “credible denials” that comprised of little more then a general denial bereft of detail or evidence are far from credible and far from the standard that the prior “immoral administration was held to”.
Regardless of one's view of Trump, Betsy DeVos was his best appointment. She removed this awful Obama "guidance" (which was akin to a mob boss "suggesting" courses of actions lest consequences be suffered) and defended the right to due process. In addition to that and equally important, DeVos is about the only one in government who thinks the job of education is actually about educating children.
Unlike the hypocrites who laud the public school system yet send their own kids to private schools, she is well aware of the failings of the cesspools of government run public shools and is trying to change them for the betterment of the kids.
“This was followed by a more serious allegation of assault, a charge he credibly denied”
I have no idea if Biden did what he was accused by that woman. My question is who decides what is credible or not? I saw that at the Kavanaugh hearing as well, when he was “credibly accused” of sexual assault. If no one else who is claimed to be a witness agrees, and the FBI looks into and finds no evidence, why is it still credible? Similarly, if the only people who looked into Bidens accuser are openly biased reporters who were looking to support their candidate last election, why is his denial credible? Has it been investigated by the police?
My point is that the author writes this excellent piece that is essentially about the lack of due process, and then goes and paints a woman who accused Biden of sexual assault as a liar, without due process of any kind. If the author is suggesting that journalists have decided it’s not credible, my question is why should I listen? When did society decide that journalists get to make that call, especially at a time in history where most journalists from legacy outlets openly admit they take sides, which they do not need to do because we can all tell by their work that they no longer attempt to control that bias?
Again, I have no idea whether Biden did that or not. Looking at his public behavior for the last 40 years and the values he taught his son (looking at you Hunter) and his ability to lie without hesitation (a truly bipartisan trait), I could easily see a misunderstanding, if not actual sexual assault. Who knows?
My overall point is the author engages in exactly the behavior she reports in this article. She has decided that she gets to make that call. It hasn’t been investigated by anyone with subpoena power or other intrusive police powers. Biden has denied it, so is that what makes the denial credible? Has any witness gone under oath?
This is what irritates me about modern times. Yes, the author is able to be objective about this issue, but somehow in doing so, still manages to remind me that young journalists can’t shut their bias off, and they still believe they get to make the call on what’s credible and what’s not. It’s like a tic. So this article is excellent otherwise, but it still has the stank of open bias that one would expect from an author who worked at NYT, Slate, the Atlantic, ect. It’s not a coincidence she worked exclusively at openly non neutral outlets I would assume. And it shows. Please make it not show especially when you toss a nugget around like that in a story about due process.
Otherwise great work.
I think you are missing the obvious upside here. I have always wanted to own a college, I've always wanted to be rich, and I've always wanted to eviscerate the Leftist influence on our universities. This gives us the opportunity to do all three at once. I am willing to donate generously to a fund to sue the pants off any college (after affirmative pants-removal consent, of course) that uses these unconstitutional measures against any American citizen, while also generating a suit that can be taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, this court which seems to be rather kindly disposed to the rights of citizens vis à vis the Feds. What's not to like?
In a different vein, this is precisely why young men stay home, play video games, and watch porn. The girls are prettier, they never say no, and they will never drag you into an inquisition should they have buyer's remorse at a later date. It now appears that the single greatest threat to Western civilization is not global "warming," nor population explosion, but rather population depletion. (Bricker and Ibbitsen) Don't think that the Titular President Asterisk administration, whose ultimate goal is a totalitarian world government, is ignorant of the effect of this new abortion they are foisting on young Americans. Population "control" is part and parcel of their plan, and when the boys are afraid to touch the girls, well, you figure it out.
“Harvard has 50 Title IX coordinators.”
Now I’m beginning to understand the grift.
Regardless, the end result will be fewer men in higher education. There will also be more social turmoil, distrust, and fear.
In short, these policies are unmistakably designed to create strife and uncertainty. Therefore, that is the intent. You cannot create utopia until you burn it all down.
Trump never gets credit. You, as all Trump haters do, make sure to disavow anything positive that the former president did. Even if you hate it, it was a Trump administration policy. It was good policy. Betsy DaVos was a Trump appointee and although she was tortured throughout her time as Education Secretary, she did a good job. It won’t kill you, or make you less credible to say it. This whole piece is really good, except the Trump hate and the Biden love. Nobody’s asking you to vote red, but writing a fair, balanced piece isn’t asking too much.
As for the new sexual harassment policy, God protect our men.
This change in policy is nothing short of horrifying. I was not previously aware that a third party could make an accusation that would be acted upon by campus administrators, regardless of the wishes of the two people actually involved.
Under these rules, it seems as if male students are better off not having sex with female fellow students at all. Or maybe they can claim to be trans, which--according to trans activists--makes lesbian women obligated to have sex with them. Kind of an extreme way to get laid. But this policy invites extreme responses.
How do we teach our sons to navigate this? Even a committed relationship that goes sour can land a man with a Title IX accusation?
This reframe that if a woman has a consensual sexual encounter she later regrets it’s an assault infantilizes women and hurts legitimate cases.
It seems these policies are more about employing lawyers and DEI personnel than solving interpersonal disputes.
I find this to be a perfect example of the the hypocrisy of modern feminism.
On the one hand they stand up and talk about women's agency and about how women are tough and smart and just as capable as men.
BUT...then they turn around and talk about how they are all victims who need special protections.
AND.....despite their rejection of the idea, popular in earlier ages, that women need to be protected and that they are wholesome, innocent and should be put on pedestals, they somehow manage to act as though women are incapable of immoral, destructive, selfish behavior. Further, they will readily talk about how women are suffering all kinds of mental issues today but then refuse to consider that those issues could translate into cruel or anti-social behavior, such as falsely claiming that they are victims of sexual harassment or rape.
Imagine what Camille Paglia would say about all this.
Women wanted liberation, equal rights, free sexuality. Of course that meant risk, hurt feelings, rejection, hook ups that didn’t go well. But they were free, and freedom doesn’t guarantee nice.
Now we have a generation of helicopter kids. They can’t tolerate freedom, risk, hurt. They need nanny to swoop in and make it all better. And our Leviathan progressives want to do that.
To today’s young women—-prepare to be lonely.
"(A)n immoral administration doing the moral thing."
Trump is bad! Bad, bad, bad! But considering the Democratic Party is in favor of abortion to the moment of birth, providing hormone treatment to children, an open border, a weak foreign policy that led to the collapse of Afghanistan and war in Ukraine, high gas prices, and inflation... how immoral was his administration compared to the current one?
I think Victor Davis Hanson's assessment of Trump is the most accurate. His accomplishments will never be appreciated because of how he has been popularly characterized.
Donald Trump is John Wayne from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
Interesting to explore how our “hair sniffer” in chief got to be associated with such deeply psychopathic prurient involvement in “due-process.” Seen this issue as a long history with deviance a la Harvard, universities, Epstein, Gates, Clinton, Biden and company. Kind of forget but it wasn’t long ago that Biden tweeted that it wasn’t unusual for good folks to get caught with pictures of unmentionables on their phones. This guy and all his associates are certifiable. No contest.
So good—thank you!
I was tangentially connected to someone who went through the nightmare of the campus sex police. He was a Black guy who was the first person in his family in generations to to college. He had sex with a well-to-do white girl who later decided she hadn’t really wanted to do it. He was expelled, sued, and won a big court verdict. The jury was out I think less than 15 minutes. There was video—which I don’t think he got a chance to see or argue during the University investigation—that made it clear as day that the girl had not been blackout drunk as she claimed.
The courts can fix a wrongful expulsion on paper, but unfortunately they can’t come close to making a wrongfully expelled student whole. Missing a year or more of college, having your friends graduate without you, the nightmare of a false investigation (which in his case was probably a classic example of racially motivated sex accusations, one of the uglier parts of Jim Crow that is resurgent under the Obama Title IX regs), having a gap in your resume you have to explain for your next ten years of job interviews, the stigma of being expelled for sexual misconduct… nothing a court can do can fix that.
Hopefully universities will wake up to the legal liability they face for wrongful expulsions and will voluntarily keep more robust protections for the accused than the regulations require.
If the Trump regs were an example of an immoral administration doing the moral thing, what would you call the BIden example on Title IX?
Also, just curious, since we're assigning modifiers to each administration, but what would $2/gal gas, low inflation, wages outpacing inflation for blue and brown collar workers, and a (relatively speaking, anyway) secure border be an example of: a moral or immoral administration? And what would the opposite or diametrically opposed outcomes be an example of? Moral? Immoral? Super moral?
Or, as anyone with a brain can infer, doesn't matter because the author's north star is her "feelings" and one President makes her "feel" bad for reasons no sane person can articulate, but another President makes her "feel" good for reasons that are completely belied by reality - like the reality of the article she just authored.
Stop printing embarrassing drivel, Bari.
As a parent of two boys and one girl I cannot imagine just believing everything my daughter says and affirming it as truth while then presuming that my boys are guilty just because some girl said so. We live in a time where people think "words are violence" and we cannot define "woman" and a person is "offended" if we don't call them by their proper pronouns. I have instructed my boys that if anyone ever threatens them with sexual misconduct allegations to stop talking to anyone and immediately seek council. It used to be a fundamental principal that one was innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, now one is guilty because a female, (often a consenting adult) claims "victim" and is reaffirmed. Have we learned nothing from the ESPN "30 for 30" on the Duke Lacrosse team (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.espn.com/30for30/film/_/page/fantasticlies&ved=2ahUKEwjq5vvpws34AhW2IUQIHSY2DFAQFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0lmKRk_i2-TLcIrPMhdBM2) or several of.the articles posted here on "Common Sense" about Joshua Katz (https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-princeton-did-to-my-husband) David Sabatini (https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher) or Roland Fryer? (https://glennloury.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-roland-fryer). Woman absolutely can be victims but they can also LIE and Manipulate.
My boys should not have to live in fear of everything they say and do. They have a responsibility to treat "women" (which really means anyone) with respect but should not have to walk on eggshells to do so. In my opinion, the REAL victims of sexual assault will be undermined by a whole lot of "guilty by affirmation" rather than an appropriate trial. It serves neither the real victims nor the young men who are found "guilty" because a school administrator says so.
This is NOT okay!