"McMaster's Imaginary Sex Ring"

[Wahoo Redux]

Marshy, my friend, you often make up stuff or perhaps willfully misunderstand with very simple, denotative readings of words.

Fer pete's sake, buddy, look stuff up before getting all hot and frothy.

[marshwiggle]

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.

So why not say "Listen to women"? There'd be virtually no pushback to that.
As Stockmann said, there are all kinds of people who would be natural allies who are alienated by wording that can be interpreted in a very wide variety of ways, when clearer wording is available.

[Parasaurolophus]

Because the wording wasn't chosen by committee or by poll. People coalesced around a pithy slogan.

Those who are so peeved about the wording that they couldn't possibly investigate, let alone support, the message--or who, having learned just what it is, are so peeved about the slogan that they think that's more important than its content--were probably never going to be on board, however. You can't please everyone, and their reaction suggests they wouldn't have been pleased even if there had been a committee that settled on 'listen to women'.

[Stockmann]

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.

In this particular instance, the McMaster's authorities did decide to believe to the point of "conviction" - they only backtracked when facing the combo of the accuser recanting, lawyers (and thus external standards of evidence) getting involved and journalistic investigation - it's clear had it not been for these factors they were prepared to burn the department to the ground. That was my point with "Investigate All Complaints" - had they done due diligence and investigated properly instead of going on a crusade, at least some of the accusations would've quickly unraveled. People aren't wary of slogans like "believe women" because they fear remote hypotheticals, but because false or inaccurate accusations, and witch hunts that treat their accuracy as an article of faith are, while comparatively rare, a very real thing. Ideologically motivated witch hunts both lend credence to guilty parties claiming, well, to be the targets of ideologically motivated witch hunts, while also making things harder for actual victims, at least in the court of public opinion ("yeah, the admins said they investigated and the complaint was true, but they'd say that, wouldn't they?").

[Puget]

I'm going to stay clear of the well-worn political debate here, and just note that this would have gone down very differently if the people doing the investigating had had some basic education in the relevant areas of psychology, especially recognizing signs of psychosis, and understanding how false memories can be formed (anyone with familiarity with the "recovered" memory panics of the 80s-90s should have recognized the second student as a textbook example early on). Ironically, since they were investigating the psych department they couldn't call upon them as experts, but they would have done well to bring in external experts early on.

[marshwiggle]

Because the wording wasn't chosen by committee or by poll. People coalesced around a pithy slogan.

Those who are so peeved about the wording that they couldn't possibly investigate, let alone support, the message--or who, having learned just what it is, are so peeved about the slogan that they think that's more important than its content--were probably never going to be on board, however. You can't please everyone, and their reaction suggests they wouldn't have been pleased even if there had been a committee that settled on 'listen to women'.

There are many people who take their own independence very seriously, and avoid belonging to all kinds of organizations that they mostly agree with because they don't want anyone to try to claim to speak for them.

Such as:

• voters who don't belong to any party, even if they always vote, and maybe even often vote for the same party
• people who have attended the same church or other religious organization, sometimes for decades, but who choose not to become members
• people who are represented by unions but choose not to join the union
• donors who give to the same charities monthly, but choose not to set up automatic donations

These people often agree with an organization's support of X and Y, but not their support of Z, and won't join the organization so they they can't be assumed to support Z. (And reserve the right to abandon the organization in future if they embrace positions even more at odds with their values.)

A lot of black people were annoyed when Biden said,"If you don't vote for me, you ain't black." The condescending implication that all black voters should automatically vote for him was an insult to anyone who actually thinks about their voting. (Not to mention, by that logic, it suggests that anyone who didn't vote for Trump "ain't white". So I guess white people were morally obligated to vote for Trump????)

Choosing to view these people as enemies rather than trying to push such an agressive agenda is misguided, in my opinion, since it refuses to accept evolutionary progress in favour of impatiently pushing for revolutionary change.

[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.

One sentence is missing the word "no", think (know) makes NO sense... is the way it should read.

[kaysixteen]

What is the state of Canadian law in cases like this, and how does it differ with US law?

[marshwiggle]

What is the state of Canadian law in cases like this, and how does it differ with US law?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't think Canadian law is quite as "woke" as U.S. law, but wokeness in university administrators is probably almost as common as in the U.S. I would hope that any lawsuits arising out of these kinds of witch hunts would still be sufficiently punitive to throw cold water in the faces of other administrators who are on the same bandwagon.

[Wahoo Redux]

Only certain conservatives use the slang "woke." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBOWIiCcR-o

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W7iWEEcPKoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UilPGMT45n8&t=3s

Can you define "woke," Marshy, or have you jumped on the woke bandwagon?

[Wahoo Redux]

<oops>

[Caracal]

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.

So why not say "Listen to women"? There'd be virtually no pushback to that.
As Stockmann said, there are all kinds of people who would be natural allies who are alienated by wording that can be interpreted in a very wide variety of ways, when clearer wording is available.

It might help to compare this to the way think about other sorts of crimes. If someone says they were mugged or attacked on the street, the default assumption is that they are telling the truth. That's true from the police to the press to anybody who hears about it. That doesn't mean blind belief. If you are claiming that you were attacked on election day and some people held you down and carved "Obama" into your forehead, but "Obama" is inverted (I believe this actually happened) the police are probably going to start having some questions. Or it's something like the Jessie Smollett thing where various things about the story don't make any sense, well the presumption that you're telling the truth starts to go away.

And of course, this is before we even get to a legal proceeding or even disciplinary action.

[marshwiggle]

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.

So why not say "Listen to women"? There'd be virtually no pushback to that.
As Stockmann said, there are all kinds of people who would be natural allies who are alienated by wording that can be interpreted in a very wide variety of ways, when clearer wording is available.

It might help to compare this to the way think about other sorts of crimes. If someone says they were mugged or attacked on the street, the default assumption is that they are telling the truth. That's true from the police to the press to anybody who hears about it. That doesn't mean blind belief. If you are claiming that you were attacked on election day and some people held you down and carved "Obama" into your forehead, but "Obama" is inverted (I believe this actually happened) the police are probably going to start having some questions. Or it's something like the Jessie Smollett thing where various things about the story don't make any sense, well the presumption that you're telling the truth starts to go away.

And of course, this is before we even get to a legal proceeding or even disciplinary action.

Exactly. But there's no slogan "Believe *complainants!", because it's kind of pointless. Historically many womens' claims of sexual harassment and assault were often taken less seriously than other complaints, but exactly for that reason the appropriate response is to suggest that all complaints should be taken seriously, which means they should be investigated as thoroughly as other complaints.

(*I'm no legal expert, so I'm using the term "complaint" because I think that's what any claim of a crime is called before/until it is investigated.)

[Stockmann]

...this would have gone down very differently if the people doing the investigating had had some basic education in the relevant areas of psychology, especially recognizing signs of psychosis, and understanding how false memories can be formed (anyone with familiarity with the "recovered" memory panics of the 80s-90s should have recognized the second student as a textbook example early on). Ironically, since they were investigating the psych department they couldn't call upon them as experts, but they would have done well to bring in external experts early on.

It would've gone down very differently if they'd acted professionally and done their due diligence. There were bits contradicting demonstrable facts, like claiming a professor was physically present at an abuse session at a conference when she wasn't even at the conference. Also, when testimony switches crucial parts around, like changing the identity of the alleged perpetrator, and involves stuff like premonitions, it shouldn't take an expert in psychology to question the testimony's reliability, even without the contradicting facts - these aren't exactly subtle cues that something might be amiss. And they had basically nothing other than the accusation - no witnesses, no evidence of any other kind. This wasn't merely a case of incompetence, it was a case of not doing due diligence, not acting professionally, etc - it wasn't inept administrators messing up because they lacked the expertise, it was a witch hunt (note that the professor not at the conference wasn't told of this specific allegation, so had no chance to show that she wasn't even there).

[Hibush]

This misadventure shows why due process is so critical. The institution needs to have a process for complaints that provides an opportunity for each party to provide their version of events at the very least. Then the institution needs to follow the process rigorously.

While the McMaster situation is in Canada, the US dynamic can be a helpful parallel.

Historically, established processes at universities and elsewhere did not afford victims due process. The Title IX office in the Obama Dept of Education really pushed hard to change that. Some institutions, responding to the insistent tone of that directive, went too far in the other direction, denying the accused due process. Most places corrected that in the last couple years.

At my institution, there was a great deal of discussion in official groups so I saw a lot. There was indeed a young faction that was out to dispatch any bad guy on first accusation. But there was also a bunch of what I call "old lefties" who were personally part of the fight to get due process for those who were protesting the administration from the left back in the 1960s and 70s. While the new folks thought those were conservative establishment types to battle, the old lefties were actually just as liberal and a whole lot more effective are delivering strategically on common goals.