"McMaster's Imaginary Sex Ring"

[Wahoo Redux]

Quillette: McMaster's Imaginary Sex Ring

Title kind of says it all.  But this seems to be another tale of people trying to do the right thing but becomes (perhaps understandably) overzealous----and of incompetent cover-yr-arse administrators.

[marshwiggle]

Based on what Chloe observed, as well as certain pertinent details concerning Becca's history, she suspected (correctly) that Becca was experiencing the onset of a serious mental-health disorder. Chloe created a journal, in which she recorded details of her interactions with Becca, on the understanding that these observations might later serve to inform any future therapeutic treatment that Becca received.

Chloe, a grad student, was apparently the only adult in the room smart enough to recognize mental illness when faced with outlandish claims. Hire her, fire the rest of all of the administrators involved.

[Parasaurolophus]

Recovered memories? Really? What is this, the 1990s?

Also: why does she have hundreds of pages' worth of text messages with the prof? He was cleared of sexual assault, but did he in fact have a sexual relationship with her? Aha--reading on, I see the answer is yes.

So: there was no sex ring in the department, but there was a predatory faculty member. So, although the story she told was (obviously?) fictitious, there's a dodgy nugget of truth at its core.

[Diogenes]

Most moral panics start with a kernel of truth, or at least believability. Which is also necessary for creating false memories. The victim has to think it possible to have happened.

[apl68]

This gives crusading DEI departments another big black eye.  The ones at McMaster have now turned some faculty members who evidently were pretty right-on to start with against them.  Imagine how intense the witch hunt could have gotten if the targets hadn't had such strong progressive bona fides.

Some of this could have been avoided if the one prof had adhered to an old-fashioned (and commonsensical) "avoid even a hint of inappropriate relationships with students" policy. 

The student showed a good deal of courage when she started coming back to her right mind, realized what she had done, and started trying to make it right.

[Diogenes]

Recovered memory moral panics happen across political and religious spheres.  I would argue it's more of a problem of poor checks and balances, and lack of knowledge about the issue. I don't know if the fact that the lead pitchfork was based in the DEI office matters. A different org chart would have put that role in any number of other departments.

[marshwiggle]

Recovered memory moral panics happen across political and religious spheres.  I would argue it's more of a problem of poor checks and balances, and lack of knowledge about the issue. I don't know if the fact that the lead pitchfork was based in the DEI office matters. A different org chart would have put that role in any number of other departments.

But the "believe all women" principle means that "checks and balances" are evil by definition.

[Parasaurolophus]

But the "believe all women" principle means that "checks and balances" are evil by definition.

It's a slogan, and the slogan is "believe women". The idea is that we should default to a sympathetic, rather than an antagonistic, attitude because so much sexual harassment is not amenable to the epistemic standards appropriate to a criminal prosecution. Those of us who advocate it think of it as perfectly defeasible. Indeed, in this case the defeators are immediately apparent.

But you already know this. It's been explained umpteen times. You're just not interested in listening because it doesn't confirm your preconceptions, ideology, agenda, whatever.

[marshwiggle]

But the "believe all women" principle means that "checks and balances" are evil by definition.

It's a slogan, and the slogan is "believe women". The idea is that we should default to a sympathetic, rather than an antagonistic, attitude because so much sexual harassment is not amenable to the epistemic standards appropriate to a criminal prosecution.

Why are those the only options? Respectfully trying to get all of the information as part of an investigation doesn't require projecting either distrust, or a sense that no more information is needed. Commitment to investigating every complaint takes complaints seriously without having to imply any guarantee of a specific outcome.

[Parasaurolophus]

Why are those the only options?

They aren't. But the reason why the slogan is promoted is because for too long, the default assumption has been that women are lying or exaggerating. And since for many of these cases, there's not much that can be offered by way of independent evidence, it has been and is all too easy to simply dismiss allegations of harassment and assault as a mere misunderstanding or similar bullshit.

Respectfully trying to get all of the information as part of an investigation doesn't require projecting either distrust, or a sense that no more information is needed. Commitment to investigating every complaint takes complaints seriously without having to imply any guarantee of a specific outcome.

The default legal stance has precisely been not to investigate allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence--because it's no big deal, because it's a "domestic dispute", because it was her husband, because he's rich and powerful, because she's addicted to drugs, because she's a sex worker, because she's Black, because she has a criminal record, because she was dressed this or that way, and so on. What we are advocating is precisely that the allegations be taken seriously enough to be investigated in the first place (or, in the broader social sphere, that people take the time to listen to what the women in question have to say, rather than dismissing them outright).

[Stockmann]

But the "believe all women" principle means that "checks and balances" are evil by definition.

It's a slogan, and the slogan is "believe women". The idea is that we should default to a sympathetic, rather than an antagonistic, attitude because so much sexual harassment is not amenable to the epistemic standards appropriate to a criminal prosecution.

Why are those the only options? Respectfully trying to get all of the information as part of an investigation doesn't require projecting either distrust, or a sense that no more information is needed. Commitment to investigating every complaint takes complaints seriously without having to imply any guarantee of a specific outcome.

The American Left has, not just in this instance, what might be described at best as a messaging issue - the tendency to choose slogans and so on that are divisive and alienating to people who ought to be their natural allies and even their base on their ostensible goals in some specific issue. Kind of how BLM was obviously going to be far less appealing than something like "Stop Police Brutality" to Hispanics, Indian Americans, etc - so instead of something like "Investigate All Complaints" they went for "believe women." It's not just men that it alienates - there are also women (including some who have themselves been the victims of sexual violence) worried about partners, sons, brothers, etc being falsely accused.
My (non-US) institution recently required me to take a related course - it was interesting how transparent the instructors were in some respects - one of them objected to common-sense statements like "not all of the accused are guilty" and was obviously only very selectively disapproving of violence, another one however emphasized the following of due process and support for victims. The latter was what one would hope from DEI-type departments, the former was kind of why I have zero faith in my institutions DEI entity. Here too I'd worry about a similar witch hunt - even though some of the accusations in the article could be factually disproved (a professor not even being at the conference at which she allegedly helped abuse someone) that sort of thing doesn't matter to some activists nor to some careerists, nor does the outcome at McMaster's give them any real incentive to care - so guilty until proven innocent, and accusation=guilt came close to being an article of faith. The lesson I draw is "lawyer up if you're accused, even if - or perhaps especially - if you can factually prove your innocence."

[marshwiggle]

But the "believe all women" principle means that "checks and balances" are evil by definition.

It's a slogan, and the slogan is "believe women". The idea is that we should default to a sympathetic, rather than an antagonistic, attitude because so much sexual harassment is not amenable to the epistemic standards appropriate to a criminal prosecution.

Why are those the only options? Respectfully trying to get all of the information as part of an investigation doesn't require projecting either distrust, or a sense that no more information is needed. Commitment to investigating every complaint takes complaints seriously without having to imply any guarantee of a specific outcome.

The American Left has, not just in this instance, what might be described at best as a messaging issue - the tendency to choose slogans and so on that are divisive and alienating to people who ought to be their natural allies and even their base on their ostensible goals in some specific issue. Kind of how BLM was obviously going to be far less appealing than something like "Stop Police Brutality" to Hispanics, Indian Americans, etc - so instead of something like "Investigate All Complaints" they went for "believe women." It's not just men that it alienates - there are also women (including some who have themselves been the victims of sexual violence) worried about partners, sons, brothers, etc being falsely accused.

I think activists gamble on presenting things as a false dichotomy on the premise that, for instance, people will be more afraid of being called "rape apologists" than of insisting on due process. It seems that in practice, there are a lot of people who don't take the bait.

[ciao_yall]

I think activists gamble on presenting things as a false dichotomy on the premise that, for instance, people will be more afraid of being called "rape apologists" than of insisting on due process. It seems that in practice, there are a lot of people who don't take the bait.

Re -  "Believe Women" - Why is it a false dichotomy when a woman claims she has been assaulted and the choices are (1) Tell us what happened; or (2) Were you asking for it?

[marshwiggle]

I think activists gamble on presenting things as a false dichotomy on the premise that, for instance, people will be more afraid of being called "rape apologists" than of insisting on due process. It seems that in practice, there are a lot of people who don't take the bait.

Re -  "Believe Women" - Why is it a false dichotomy when a woman claims she has been assaulted and the choices are (1) Tell us what happened; or (2) Were you asking for it?

The false dichotomy is that, whenever two different people describe the same event, one must be telling the absolute truth and the other must be lying. The reality is that people have different perspectives, memory is fallible, and in the case above some people even have delusions. "Absolute truth" and "total lies" represent only a fraction of all of the possible scenarios.

That's why it's necessary to listen openly and respectfully to everyones' stories before forming an opinion. And after hearing everyones' stories, it's necessary to look for any possible evidence to confirm or deny individual elements of the stories that conflict.

If due process is disappointing in not getting enough convictions, perhaps we could learn from China, where the conviction rate is something like 99%. They must have an incredibly effective investigative process.

[jimbogumbo]

I think you entirely missed the point. ciao's first choice did NOT say you believed the woman to the point of conviction, merely that you believe and listen. In education there is a thing called the believing game, in which every time a child says something that you think (know) makes sense objectively in your discipline that you believe (and show it) that what they say makes sense to them. That is a crucial difference to the way you are using believe.