Currently browsing posts filed under "Controversies"

Follow this category via RSS

Next Page →

Paul on Free Speech

Professor Darel Paul tweets about the Ricochet article from two weeks ago.

No offence to Lukianoff et al., but trying to convince opponents of speech that free speech protects the rights of the minority is a loser of an argument for at least 2 reasons.

First, the opponents of the Chicago statement at Williams are not the “minority”. They are the majority, at least of those holding power (student government, student newspaper, etc.). And it makes sense that the majority might like to ban speech.

Moreover, this majority has no fear that it may one day become a minority on campus (a very reasonable belief) and thus one day require the protections of something like the Chicago statement.

Second, in a therapeutic culture like the one which characterizes elite college campuses in America today, freedom is a secondary value. Safety is a primary value, one which is potentially threatened by speech.

I don’t know how to get opponents of freedom to value it, but going about assuming that they actually do so in a way they don’t yet realize is an obvious mistake.

Right on all counts.

Facebooktwitter

Censorship at Williams: When You’ve Lost David Brooks

David Brooks, the somewhat conservative columnist at the New York Times, has offered his take on the pro-censorship, anti-free speech movement at Williams College.

 

 

In a tweet on Saturday, Brooks references the student statement opposing the faculty effort to adopt a version of the Chicago Statement and writes: “This is a statement signed by 363 censorship advocates at Williams College. A perfect encapsulation of the fundamentalism sweeping America’s elite colleges.” Most of the comments on Brooks’ tweet were supportive.

There was also the predictable leftist responses as follows.

In my view, the fight for freedom of speech is the most important issue in our nation. The left cannot win if we argue about their policy ideas. When we do argue policy it is too easy for conservatives to point to the real world examples of leftist ideology in action including Cuba and Venezuela. The only way the left can win is by silencing conservatives. It is good that establishment figures like David Brooks are waking up to the censorship running wild at places like Williams.

David Brooks has been writing for the New York Times since September 2003. He appears as a commentator on “PBS NewsHour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Facebooktwitter

Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty

Earlier this year, I noticed a helpful article by Mitchell Langbert on the number of Republicans teaching at the top ranked liberal arts colleges in the nation. The article appeared on the website of the National Association of Scholars. Lamgbert mentions Williams in his article. His research shows only a single Republican teaching at Williams out of 254 faculty members. According to my sources, there are actually two registered Republicans at Williams.

If this is true, it would change Langbert’s reported ratio of Democrats to Republicans at Williams from 132:1 to 66:1. This would at least take Williams out of the worst of the worst category.

I had an extended e-mail conversation with Langbert after this article came out. We compared notes on what it was like to compete for tenure and teach in an environment biased against conservatives. His article supports what I learned when I spoke with Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn, the authors of Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University. Without a doubt, Republicans fare the worst at the elite LACs in New England. For Langbert’s full article, click on the link below.

Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty

Mitchell Langbert is associate professor of business management at Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY 11210; MLangbert@HVC.RR.com.

Facebooktwitter

Evolution of Student Petition Against Chicago Statement

An anonymous student sent in this zip file which catalogs, in detail, the evolution of the student petition against the proposal that Williams adopt the Chicago statement. Comments:

1) New authors welcome! The student who sent this should join us as an author, anonymous or otherwise. Our readers would love to get your perspective.

2) New authors welcome! Any student who worked on (or agrees with) the petition should join us as an author, anonymous or otherwise. Our readers would love to get your perspective.

3) The screenshots make clear that Isabel Peña ’19 and Audrey Koh ’21 played leadership roles in putting this together. Kudos! I disagree with almost everything in the document, but playa recognize playa! Should we be surprised or pleased (or both? or neither) that two women are leading the effort?

4) Which other students are leading the charge on this? My sense is that Liliana Bierer ’19 has also played an important role, but, then again, hers is only the 16th signature on the petition. Is signature placement a useful signal?

Facebooktwitter

Faculty Petition Timeline and Request for Controversy Name

We need a name for this controversy and we need one now! Loyal readers know that Ephblog loves to name a controversy — Nigaleian, Safety Dance, Prospect Must Die, Willy E. N-word, Catch Moore If You Can and Mary Jane Hitler are just a few of our highlights — and this debate will be with us for months to come. Suggestions?

For background, here is a timeline (pdf) of events:

The following petition was drafted by several faculty members, in collaboration with and inspired by discussions among many, and finalized on October 14, 2018. It was then sent to several more faculty members for review, who gave feedback and signed their names. At the same time, a meeting for a faculty discussion was planned for November 15, 2018.

After the petition had garnered sufficient faculty support, it was sent to all voting members of the faculty on October 29, 2018 by Luana Maroja, Associate Professor of Biology, Steven Gerrard, Professor of Philosophy, and David Gürçay-Morris, Associate Professor of Theatre. Over one hundred members of the faculty had signed by November 5, 2018, representing a range of disciplines and identities. Several faculty voiced concerns by email and in person, and it was planned to have several faculty discussions to allow productive dialogue on the petition and the issues of concern. Plans for student outreach were also initiated at this time.

Apparently, information about the petition and the first planned discussion was shared with students shortly thereafter. The petition was discussed at a meeting with students and President Mandel on November 11. College Council discussed the petition on November 13. A letter to the editor by Cheryl Shanks, Professor of Political Science, was published in the Williams Record on November 14. A student letter was presented to the faculty at the November 15th 4pm meeting, which was read out loud by Professor Gerrard before he presented some brief remarks. Instead of the planned discussion amongst faculty, interested students were welcomed into the meeting. They shared their thoughts about the petition and the issues raised therein. The discussion between faculty and students continued until 6:30pm.

We still don’t know the names of the “several faculty members” who wrote the petition although, presumably, Maroja, Gerrard and Gürçay-Morris played leading roles. It would also be interesting to know which 100 faculty members signed. Here is the original version:

Petition to the Faculty of Williams College

Greetings.

In view of the continuing local and national discussions regarding freedom of expression on campus, several of us think that it is an opportune time to reflect on and clarify our policies and ideas on this issue. While there is an understandable desire to protect our students from speech they find offensive, doing so risks shutting down legitimate dialogue and failing to prepare our students to deal effectively with a diversity of opinions, including views they might vehemently disagree with.

We believe that Williams College, as an institution of higher learning, must maintain a strong commitment to academic freedom. We further believe that Williams should protect and promote the free expression of ideas. We should be encouraged to use reasoned argument and civil discourse to criticize and contest views we dispute, not to suppress these views and risk falling down the slippery slope of choosing what can and what cannot be discussed.

The Chicago Statement articulates the duties of institutions of higher learning towards freedom of expression. A version of this statement has now been adopted by many other colleges and universities, including Amherst, Princeton, Smith, and, most recently, Colgate. We believe that Williams College should affirm its commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom as essential to fulfilling its mission and goals by adopting the Chicago Statement.

If you agree with our concern and this statement, we ask you to please add your name to this petition. If we have a critical mass we will bring this to the president and our fellow faculty members for further consideration.

Links in the original. Again, my purpose in this post is not to dive into the substance of this debate. We will have months of that to come! My purpose is to solicit ideas for a funny/descriptive/insightful name for this controversy, something which merits the creation of a new EphBlog category. Thoughts:

1) Luana Maroja seems to be playing a leadership role in this effort. Well done! Maybe “Maroja’s Marauders?” I am a sucker for military references . . .

2) Note that “a group of six Williams professors started talking about getting the college to adopt the Chicago Statement.” I would assume that the 6 included Maroja, Gerrard and Gürçay-Morris. Who are the other three? Perhaps the controversy name should involve all of them? Perhaps “The Terrible Six?” Eph historians will recognize the reference (pdf):

3) I still like the alliteration of “Maud’s Moment.” Mandel will certainly be a central player in this debate, but “moment” does not quite capture things . . .

4) Is there some phrase we can use from the students’ petition against the change that resonates?

To quote Aiyana Porter at last week’s Black Student Union town hall, “John Derbyshire literally said that Black people are not humans. I’m not going to consider that in my classroom . . . . Who are we okay with making uncomfortable? Why are we so driven to making those particular people uncomfortable? If we are so insistent on making them uncomfortable, then we at least need some institutional support to get through all of the discomfort that you are thrusting upon us.”

I assumed that the reference to “my classroom” meant that Porter was a professor. Untrue! She is a student. But she does remind us how all this started with Uncomfortable Learning and John Derbyshire. Maybe “Derbyshire’s Revenge” or “Derbyshire’s Discomfit?”

Gaudino’s Revenge?

None of this is working for me. Suggestions welcome!

Facebooktwitter

Donor Beware: Power Line’s Steven Hayward Takes on Williams College

I was surprised to see one of my favorite Power Line writers, Steven Hayward, had noticed the faculty petition to bring a version of the famous Chicago Statement to Williams College. He notes he is proud UC Berkeley has adopted the Chicago Statement and its common sense defense of free speech and academic freedom. He opines “…while places like Berkeley, Colorado/Boulder, the University of Wisconsin, etc. have the rap for being the most politically correct and radical institutions of higher education, in fact they are relatively sane compared to small, elite private liberal arts colleges.”

Our Rotten Liberal Arts Colleges

His article focuses on the extremes he sees at Williams College and Sarah Lawrence. He goes out of his way to share choice elements of the student led counter-petition which hysterically views free speech and academic freedom as little more than revolutionary pogroms targeted at “people of color, queer people, disabled people, poor people, and others outside the center of power.”

His article is a refreshing reminder of why the postmodern radical ideology which dominates the culture of Williams College appears so unhealthy to well-meaning outsiders. It is worth reading his article in full. Steven Hayward is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, and a visiting lecturer at Berkeley Law School.

 

 

Facebooktwitter

Faculty Petition about Free Speech

A faculty member passed along this document (pdf) which seems to include both the (complete?) faculty petition and the student response. The petition:

Good stuff! EphBlog agrees.

1) Note that there is no mention of the Chicago Statement or Chicago principles. Perhaps an earlier (or later?) version made that connection? If not, I don’t know why President Mandel would use that terminology.

2) From a College-branding point of view — paging Jim Reische! — it might be nice to have “Williams Statement on Free Expression.” We don’t just agree with Chicago! We have our own (similar) views.

3) Who wrote this? Who organized it? Who signed it? Let us praise them!

4) Do readers have predictions about how this will all work out? This certainly seems to be the major campus controversy for 2018-2019.

5) Worth a line-by-line analysis?

Facebooktwitter

Mandel’s Moment?

From Ricochet:

Students at Williams College in Massachusetts are angry. According to a petition signed by hundreds of students, the faculty is urging the college to enact “reckless and dangerous policies” that will “imperil marginalized students,” and amount to “discursive violence.”

What awful set of policies could Williams College faculty possibly be considering?

It is a version of the policy known as the “Chicago Statement.” Created in 2015 by a committee led by legal scholar Geoffrey Stone at the University of Chicago, the statement “recommit[s] the university to the principles of free, robust, and uninhibited debate.” It explicitly reminds students and faculty on campus that they have a “responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect,” and that “concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be.”

1) Could this be Maud Mandel’s moment? She has an opportunity to guide/cajole/force Williams College along a very different path than the one Adam Falk preferred. Will she take it? EphBlog hopes so!

2) This issue comes up in the Record article we are reviewing this week. More tomorrow.

3) The petition is here (pdf). Worth a week to go through?

Facebooktwitter

More Safety Dance Documents

Here are some more Safety Dance court documents: 132-main, P Counter Facts, and P reply to D response in opposition.

Any comments from our legal readers? My sense is that readers do not want more writing from me about this sad case.

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Update, 3

Two new filings (Statement of Facts and Memo for Motion of Summary Judgment) in the Safety Dance case provide an occasion to revisit the biggest sexual assault case at Williams since Brackinridge or Gensheimer/Foster. Day 3.

The change Sandstrom refers to concerns affirmative consent. “No,” obviously, means “No.” But, just a few year ago, it was assumed that, if someone did not want to do something, they had an obligation to say so. Now, the standard is one of “affirmative consent.” It is every Eph’s obligation to ask for, and receive, permission for every sexual act. John Doe was, officially, thrown out of Williams, not for ignoring Jane Roe’s protestations but for (allegedly) not ensuring that Jane Roe said “Yes.”

This is very bit as insane as it sounds. Consider:

How many times has Maud Mandel sexually assaulted her husband since arriving at Williams?

I am 100% serious in asking this question. Consider:

The Williams College Code of Conduct requires affirmative consent for all sexual activity.

Consent means that at the time of the sexual contact, words and conduct indicate freely given approval or agreement, without coercion, by all participants in the sexual contact. Consent may not be inferred from silence or passivity.

Williams also defines “sexual activity” very broadly, as “any sexual touching, however slight, with any body part or object, by any person upon any other person . . .”

So, if Maud Mandel, without asking (and receiving!) explicit permission, has ever kissed her husband goodbye in the morning, or given him an affectionate pat on the behind as he walked out the door, or . . . anything really — then she has committed sexual assault and should, like John Doe, be kicked out of Williams.

This is, of course, nonsense. No normal person thinks that people, like Maud Mandel, in a relationship need to get permission for every single sexual activity ahead of time. But that is still the official policy at Williams, a policy which is used as a stick the ruin the lives of men — many of them poor and/or minority — much less powerful than Maud Mandel.

If John Doe deserves to be kicked out of Williams, than Maud Mandel is guilty of sexual assault.

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Update, 2

Two new filings (Statement of Facts and Memo for Motion of Summary Judgment) in the Safety Dance case provide an occasion to revisit the biggest sexual assault case at Williams since Brackinridge or Gensheimer/Foster. Day 2.

The more I read about Safety Dance, the more angry I become. Bolton/Bossong/Camancho sought to ruin John Doe’s life even though, at most, his crime was to be a bad boyfriend. Maybe they had it out for Doe because he was a first-gen minority male? They would never have pulled this crap against someone who looked like me, who came from a family of wealth and privilege . . .

Or maybe they would have screwed over a rich white guy just as hard . . .

Would that make them better people or worse?

Maud Mandel: Settle this case before it goes to trial.

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Update, 1

Two new filings (Statement of Facts and Memo for Motion of Summary Judgment) in the Safety Dance case provide an occasion to revisit the biggest sexual assault case at Williams since Brackinridge or Gensheimer/Foster. Day 1.

1) Why do I call this case “Safety Dance?”

And the lyrics from the song “Safety Dance”:

We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
‘Cause your friends don’t dance and if they don’t dance
Well they’re no friends of mine.

I say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind
And we can dance

Alas, John Doe has discovered that, leaving the real world far behind, is not so easy when it comes to the sexual assault bureaucracy at Williams . . .

2) Key facts:

This is nuts! Does anyone disagree? Read the full document for details, but it is not disputed that Smith only complained about the alleged assault after her attempts to get Doe thrown out for a never-happened honor code violation failed.

I am honestly curious to know if there are readers who agree with the College’s decision to throw Doe out, denying him his degree even though he has completed all the requirements for graduation. Contrary opinions welcome!

Facebooktwitter

Reunion Rape, 5

The election for Berkshire District Attorney has generated lots of discussion (here, here, here and here) at EphBlog. Especially interesting have been the comments (e.g., here) from Interloper, who really ought to join us as an author. Andrea Harrington won the primary but incumbent Paul Caccaviello is running ran a (hopeless? hopeless!) write-in campaign. What matters to us, however, are these news stories about an (alleged) rape at reunion in 2016. As one of the four highest profile sexual assaults cases at Williams in the last 20 years — the other three are Gensheimer/Foster, Brackenridge and Safety Dance — this merits a week’s worth of discussion. Day 5.

Good news or bad news for Williams?

Policies in the DA’s office around assault and rape, particularly at Williams, became an issue in the DA primary campaign over the summer when allegations surfaced of prosecutorial dismissiveness for rape allegations at Williams. The school reported the existence of allegation of over 40 rapes and assaults in recent years to police, but only one case was prosecuted by the DA’s office. Andrea Harrington, the Democratic nominee, and her allies see that as part of a history of looking the other way by the office, particularly at concerns incidents at the college.

Harrington announced in August that, if elected, she would “review all un-indicted complaints of sexual assault received by the District Attorney’s office in the last 15 years, including processing all untested rape kits.” Such a proposal would require a lot of work and would likely include a review of the conduct of the office with respect to a local college and law enforcement handling of evidence.

“I will make sure that we do a complete and thorough review of all rape and sexual assault cases which are within the 15 year statute of limitations,” Harrington said in a statement to The Greylock Glass.

1) Unless I am mistaken, there has no been a case of “stranger” rape at Williams in several decades, if ever. That is, every reported sexual assault has included the name of the alleged perpetrator (or has been a case in which the alleged victim knew the name of her attacker and declined to provide it). In other words, “processing all untested rape kits” is a giant waste of time, but does serve as a signal to all Harrington’s progressive supporters that she is one of them.

2) To the extent that this also refers to sexual assault cases in which the attacker is unknown, it might make sense. Indeed, it might make sense for Harrington to enlist some Williams faculty and students in the search because her small office may lack the resources for work like this:

In an astonishing bit of work, police were able to track down the man they suspect of being the Golden State Killer after matching his DNA with the DNA of distant relatives thanks to a commercial genetics testing company.

Wouldn’t it be cool if Williams could help Harrington bring some rapists to justice? On this surely all Ephs can agree.

Facebooktwitter

Reunion Rape, 4

The election for Berkshire District Attorney has generated lots of discussion (here, here, here and here) at EphBlog. Especially interesting have been the comments (e.g., here) from Interloper, who really ought to join us as an author. Andrea Harrington won the primary but incumbent Paul Caccaviello is running ran a (hopeless? hopeless!) write-in campaign. What matters to us, however, are these news stories about an (alleged) rape at reunion in 2016. As one of the four highest profile sexual assaults cases at Williams in the last 20 years — the other three are Gensheimer/Foster, Brackenridge and Safety Dance — this merits a week’s worth of discussion. Day 4.

Maybe John Pucci is neither a knave nor a fool. He is merely a hired gun, saying whatever his clients want or, much worse, saying whatever he thinks will cause his clients to give him more money. (Informed commentary welcome!) But, surely, we can all agree that this would be a horrible idea?

“But when the district attorney’s office learns that there are as many as 73 sexual assaults that have occurred in the last four years at Williams, they have a duty to investigate,” said Pucci. “And this is not that complicated. It’s stunning to me that Caccaviello can step back and say ‘we inferred they didn’t want to cooperate.’”

Pucci says the DA’s office could have initiated a basic criminal prosecution investigation.

“You contact Williams College. You ask them for their reports and interviews of the victims. If they don’t want to give them to you, you issue a grand jury subpoena,” he said. “The district attorney in Berkshire County has a grand jury standing and available. They issue a simple piece of paper to Williams, Williams gives them the name of the victims, and then they do the basics. The basics are laid out in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security guidelines for sexual assault investigations.”

This is madness! Does Pucci really believe it or is he just saying what his clients want? Or is he just saying what he thinks his clients want to hear?

1) Has any DA in Massachusetts, or in the US, ever done this? Not that I know. (Perhaps former Williams faculty member KC Johnson, co-author of The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, can comment?)

2) What would happen if Harrington did this? I assume that Williams would fight tooth-and-nail. Am I wrong? Perhaps someone at Williams — Meg Bossong ’05? — would like to see more prosecutions of Williams students? Informed commentary welcome!

3) What would happen in the courts? Harrington subpoenas. Williams resists. The judge rules that . . . What do our Eph lawyers think?

4) How does this issue — and her general relationship with Williams College — tie into Harrington’s ambitions? Unlike Caccaviello — a time-serving mediocrity who would have been happy as DA for 20 years — Harrington clearly aspires to greater things. There are two strategies that a backwoods DA might take in climbing the greasy pole of MA Democratic politics: work with powerful local institutions like Williams (in the expectation of future back-scratches in return) or relentlessly attack them in a bid to build name-recognition. Assume that Harrington wants to be a Senator someday. What advice do you have for her?

Background: WW points out that the details of the accusation are horrific (pdf). Key points:

Facebooktwitter

Reunion Rape, 3

The election for Berkshire District Attorney has generated lots of discussion (here, here, here and here) at EphBlog. Especially interesting have been the comments (e.g., here) from Interloper, who really ought to join us as an author. Andrea Harrington won the primary but incumbent Paul Caccaviello is running ran a (hopeless? hopeless!) write-in campaign. What matters to us, however, are these news stories about an (alleged) rape at reunion in 2016. As one of the four highest profile sexual assaults cases at Williams in the last 20 years — the other three are Gensheimer/Foster, Brackenridge and Safety Dance — this merits a week’s worth of discussion. Day 3.

There is no doubt that the alleged victim and her husband are spending serious money in their quest for justice.

Reading from a statement, Caccaviello told WAMC that the Williamstown Police Department conducted a more than two-month investigation that included interviews with 23 witnesses — 10 of which he said were named by Pucci.

“Prosecutors are duty bound to bring a charge only when there is evidence to support the allegation,” said Caccaviello. “Experienced prosecutors and law enforcement reviewed the matter and concluded that there was not a reasonable basis to bring a charge.”

The timing is unclear (to me).

1) When was the assault reported?

2) Why was the rape kit collected at Mt. Sinai (in NYC?) instead of near Williamstown?

3) When did the investigation start?

4) What are the basic facts of the case? I suspect (but do not know) that this is a classic he-said/she-said case in which no one disputes that two people went somewhere alone and then had sex. The debate is over the existence, or lack thereof, of consent.

5) Eoin Higgins has provided some impressive coverage of this case. The Record ought to, at least, interview him.

Side note:

The school reported the existence of allegation of over 40 rapes and assaults in recent years to police, but only one case was prosecuted by the DA’s office. Andrea Harrington, the Democratic nominee, and her allies see that as part of a history of looking the other way by the office, particularly at concerns incidents at the college.

Which case was “prosecuted by the DA’s office?” I have not heard anything about a sexual assault prosecution involving Williams since Gensheimer/Foster.

Facebooktwitter

Reunion Rape, 2

The election for Berkshire District Attorney has generated lots of discussion (here, here, here and here) at EphBlog. Especially interesting have been the comments (e.g., here) from Interloper, who really ought to join us as an author. Andrea Harrington won the primary but incumbent Paul Caccaviello is running a (hopeless?) write-in campaign. What matters to us, however, are these news stories about an (alleged) rape at reunion in 2016. As one of the four highest profile sexual assaults cases at Williams in the last 20 years — the other three are Gensheimer/Foster, Brackenridge and Safety Dance — this merits a week’s worth of discussion. Day 2.

Gossip about this event has been swirling around Williams ever since it occurred. I first heard about it in February 2017. An anonymous alum wrote me:

The reason I have been looking into Falk’s background is that something terrible happened at reunion this past June, involving allegations of sexual assault and rape of an inebriated Alumnus. The accused – her former classmate – is one of the wealthiest members and single largest donors in their Williams class. Suffice it to say that Adam Falk’s response (or lack thereof) has not pleased the victim or her husband (also an Alum in the same class). Understanding what motivates Falk (money, money, money), and getting a better sense of his personal morality goes a long way in explaining his behavior.

1) I suspect that this alleged assault was behind some of the cryptic comments made at EphBlog which connected the resignation of the previous DA, David Capeless, to Falk’s departure. I still think this claimed connection is nonsense. Falk was on his way out. This controversy played no role. (Contrary opinions welcome!)

2) You only truly understand a controversy if you can make the best possible case for both sides. Can you pass the ideological Turing Test? In this case, the key dispute is over the alleged sexual assault. Is the Williams alumna telling the truth or is she not? Make the best possible case for each side in the comments.

3) Should we use the names of the people involved? EphBlog would certainly never publish (without her consent) the name of someone who reported a sexual assault to the police. But what about the accused, someone who is, by all accounts, a fairly prominent member of the class of 1991? What about the husband of the alleged victim? He is neither victim nor accused, but he is (?) also a key part of this story. He may or may not share the last name of the alleged victim.

Facebooktwitter

Reunion Rape, 1

The election for Berkshire District Attorney has generated lots of discussion (here, here, here and here) at EphBlog. Especially interesting have been the comments (e.g., here) from Interloper, who really ought to join us as an author. Andrea Harrington won the primary but incumbent Paul Caccaviello is running a (hopeless?) write-in campaign. What matters to us, however, are these news stories about an (alleged) rape at reunion in 2016. As one of the four highest profile sexual assaults cases at Williams in the last 20 years — the other three are Gensheimer/Foster, Brackenridge and Safety Dance — this merits a week’s worth of discussion. Day 1.

The accusation:

“I was involved in a case in which I represented a woman who was sexually assaulted at Williams. Let me back up a step and say that I don’t want to make this interview about a single case. I think there’s a much broader and bigger picture of what’s happening at Williams College that really needs to come to light and be focused on,” Pucci told WAMC. “There was a rape at Williams College. The victim and her husband came to me because they were unsatisfied with what was happening at the DA’s office — there was a lack of communication.”

He said they approached him to serve as a lawyer and councilor to ensure their voices were heard.

“From the beginning, the district attorney’s office feigned an interest and oversaw a faux investigation in which barely half of the witnesses were identified, in which my client had had a physical rape exam and it had found a vaginal tear, a very significant finding, and the district attorney’s office would not complete the forensic testing in the case,” said Pucci.

1) Recall that I accused Pucci of being “either a knave or a fool” I was wrong! He is getting paid (big bucks?) to involve himself in this case.

2) I believe — corrections welcome — that the case involves three people from the class of 1991, back at Williams in June 2016 for their 25th year reunion. I think that the alleged assault took place in the Greylock dorms.

There is a lot to unpack here, which is why we will have a week of discussion.

UPDATE: Latest news article here.

Facebooktwitter

Sex Crimes

From the latest Clery Report:

It is a weird world when sex crimes are common and robbery is unheard of . . .

Does the below mean that there were no arrests for any sex-related crimes?

Curious what those weapons charges were about . . .

Facebooktwitter

Clery Report

Latest Clery Report is available (pdf):

To the Williams Community,

The College’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report was published online in September 2018 and can be viewed at – https://security.williams.edu/files/2018/10/Clery-2018.pdf.

The Annual Security Report discloses information concerning campus safety and security policies and procedures, as well as statistics regarding certain types of crimes reported to the campus and local law enforcement during the calendar year 2017.

This report includes:

· Policies and procedures
· Security awareness programs
· Crime Prevention
· Security of and access to College facilities
· Campus Safety Authorities, CSA
· Possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs
· Sex offenses and the sex offender registry
· Violence Against Women Act VAWA
· Reporting of crimes and emergencies
· Emergency notification systems
· Crime statistics for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017

The Annual Fire Safety Report includes:

· Fire safety policies
· Fire statistics for on-campus student residences 2015, 2016, and 2017
· Fire safety systems, alarm monitoring, and sprinkler systems
· Fire drills
· Policies relating to portable electrical appliances
· Evacuation procedures
· Fire safety training

Together, these reports provide students, prospective students, employees, and prospective employees with key information regarding the security of the campus and surrounding areas, and ultimately, create a safer, more secure campus environment. To request a paper copy of the current Annual Security and Fire Safety Report, please contact our Associate Director for Clery Compliance and Training, Alison Warner at 413-597-4444 or by email at awarner@williams.edu

Regards,

Alison Warner
Associate Director of Clery Compliance And Training

I will have some thoughts tomorrow.

Facebooktwitter

Haystack Monument Dirtied

From the Record:

Haystack monument defaced, perpetrators unknown

On or prior to Sunday afternoon, some unknown person or persons defaced the Haystack Monument and the surrounding grass area outside Mission Park. At 12:36 p.m. on Sunday, three Campus Safety and Security (CSS) officers responded to a report of the defacement from four visitors to campus, who stated that they were members of the clergy. Three concentric, semicircular trenches were carved into the ground between the Haystack Monument itself and the benches which face it. Additionally, dirt was smeared on the sides of the monument. On one side, a handprint of dirt was enclosed by streaks around it forming an oval shape. Besides the dirt, there did not appear to be any physical damage to the monument itself. CSS has not yet been able to determine who defaced the monument, when it occurred or the potential motive behind it.

“We are unsure if this is a prank or an act of vandalism and have no further information to share,” Director of CSS David Boyer said. The Haystack Monument commemorates the 1806 meeting of a group of Williams students who would go on to later found the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM). ABCFM was a major Christian missionary organization throughout the 19th century, sending missionaries to China, India, South Africa, Hawai‘i and various North American indigenous nations. The name of the monument comes from a story of the students taking refuge from a sudden thunderstorm underneath a haystack. The name of Mission Park also comes from their meeting.

1) Solid reporting by Executive Editor, Nicholas Goldrosen.

2) A follow up article should put this action in context by reviewing other acts of campus vandalism over the last decade or so.

3) Is this really an act of defacement? Dirt is not paint, much less destruction of the stone itself.

4) Motives? This does not seem to be a “hate hoax,” a false flag in which a minority vandalizes something in an anti-minority fashion, as with Griffin Hall two years ago. Could it be just teenagers acting teenagerly, with no larger political meaning?

Facebooktwitter

One African-American Phi Beta Kappa Graduate in 2016

In the Williams College class of 2016, there were 67 Phi Beta Kappa (PBK) graduates. One of them (Todd Hall) was African-American. (Full list of students available in the course catalog, and reprinted below the break for your convenience.) Comments:

1) There were 37 African-American First Years in 2012-2013 (pdf). Some of those students transferred or took time off. Some African-American students from earlier years ended up in this class. We don’t know the total number of African-American graduates in the class of 2016, but it was probably around 34.

2) Since Phi Beta Kappa is the top 12.5% of the class, we would expect about 4 African-American PBK graduates. Of course, there will be random variation. Perhaps this year is low but, in other years, African-Americans are over-represented? Alas, that does not appear to be the case; there were zero African-American PBK graduates in 2009, 2010 and 2017.

3) A relevant news hook is the “scandal” last spring over UPenn law professor Amy Wax claiming that African-American law students “rarely” graduate in the top half of their class. The difference between EphBlog and Amy Wax, obviously, is that we have the data. (Williams declined to confirm or deny our analysis.)

4) Should we spend a few days discussing the reasons for this anomaly? If the Record were a serious newspaper, it would investigate this statistic and interview senior faculty and administrators about it.

Williams 2016 Phi Beta Kappa graduates:
Read more

Facebooktwitter

George H. Nash Presents at the Williams Faculty Club

Dr. Nash presents his remarks
.
On the evening of September 13th, members from across the Williams community gathered in the Faculty Club to attend a private dinner lecture with renowned presidential historian George H. Nash. This event, organized by the Society for Conservative Thought and generously sponsored by the Department of Political Science, was attended by thirty students, five professors, administrators, and a representative from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Recently inducted Williams President Maud S. Mandel attended the reception.
.
Dr. Nash is a leading intellectual of the twentieth century American conservative movement. His 1976 book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, was described by historian Forrest McDonald as “a masterful study that can be read for edification by people on the entire range of the political spectrum.” At the dinner, Dr. Nash articulated an overview of twentieth century American conservatism and explained the context and potential implications of populism as manifested in the Trump presidency. Video of his lecture is provided below:
.

The Society for Conservative Thought earnestly thanks the Department of Political Science and the various College officials that were vital to the success of this event.
.

Facebooktwitter

Treason

From iBerkshires:

protest

Mother Nature was not the only one who may have made revelers at the town’s annual Fourth of July celebrations a little uncomfortable.

A group of nine young people turned out at the parade and annual reading of the founding documents with thought-provoking signs that provided a balanced perspective to a day that, for some, is all about patriotism.

Dressed in plain black T-shirts and holding placards with messages like, “End Prison Slavery,” and, “No One Is Illegal on Stolen Land,” the group stepped onto Spring Street a little ahead of the parade as the American Legion Color Guard made its way around the corner from Main Street.

The protesters, who appeared to be college- age, then walked the parade route as a group before circling back individually with their signs displayed — making sure their messages were delivered even as parade units ranging from the Williamstown Select Board to the North Adams SteepleCats waved to the crowd in the background.

Later, the same group of protesters filed into Williams College’s Sawyer Library just before the traditional reading of the nation’s founding documents and held the same signs silently at the front of the audience gathered to hear actors from Williamstown Theatre Festival perched on the walkway above.

The president of the Williamstown Chamber of Commerce, who organizes the parade, said she was not sure whether the group had asked to be included in that event, but she welcomed its presence.

“Isn’t that what America is about?” Victoria Saltzman said. “This is an example. It’s quintessentially America that we can celebrate and protest at the same time.”

From this tweet, we find these flyers, presumably (?) distributed by the same group:

DhRvHwAXcAEDhp9

Below the break are more photos:

001-070418_williamstown_parade--001

002-070418_williamstown_parade--003

003-070418_williamstown_parade--004

Are they all students?

Facebooktwitter

Marcus ’88 Moves on Racial Issues, 5

Ken Marcus ’88 is the (recently confirmed) Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, a position which places him at the center of the debate about racial diversity in higher education. Marcus, and his colleagues in the Justice Department, have started the process of getting rid of racial preferences. Let’s spend a week discussing their efforts. Day 5.

“It remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the 4-to-3 majority.

Some colleges, such as Duke and Bucknell universities, said they would wait to see how the Education Department proceeds in issuing new guidance. Other colleges said they would proceed with diversifying their campuses as the Supreme Court intended.

Melodie Jackson, a Harvard spokeswoman, said the university would “continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race as one factor among many in college admissions, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court for more than 40 years.”

A spokeswoman for the University of Michigan, which won a major Supreme Court case in 2003, suggested that the flagship university would like more freedom to consider race, not less. But it is already constrained by state law. After the case, Michigan voters enacted a constitutional ban on race-conscious college admissions policies.

Where are we headed? Tough to know!

1) Discrimination against Asian-Americans is significant, unpopular and very hard to justify. A Republican Supreme Court is going to find it hard to allow it to continue, at least officially. I suspect that decisions like Fisher v. Texas are in trouble, although any eventual over-turning might be several years out.

2) The Deep State of elite education is not so easily defeated. Affirmative Action — treating applicants differently on the basis of their race — is already illegal in states like California and Michigan and, yet, it still goes on sub rosa.

3) Elite institutions like Harvard are determined and resourceful. Their defense in the current lawsuit is, quite frankly, genius. Harvard creates a personal rating for all applicants. Asian-Americans do much worse on this metric. Once you account for these scores, Harvard (probably!) does not discriminate. And, since those (totally opaque!) scores are under Harvard’s complete control, there is no way to prove that it is discriminating or to stop it from doing so.

Facebooktwitter

Sawyer Fliers

Forwarded by a faculty member:

From: “Haynes, Leticia”
Date: July 12, 2018 at 6:10:36 PM GMT+2
To: WILLIAMS-PERSONNEL@LISTSERV.WILLIAMS.EDU
Subject: Fliers recently discovered in Sawyer Library

Williams faculty, staff and students,

On Monday, July 9, a faculty member reported finding a large number of copies of a flier in the library stacks. The fliers contain content that is hard to interpret overall, but some of the images and statements are clearly offensive to college values. This was the second such flier found in the library in the past week. Images of both are below.

Flier front

Flier back

1) How are these images “clearly offensive?” I realize that the Confederacy is, in and of itself, offensive to many Ephs but are we really required to erase history? I hope not!

2) How can the “statements” here by offensive? Aren’t they just accurate Bible quotes?

3) What is up with the Star of David?

One nice aspect of these controversies is that they provide an excuse to learn some history. Below, from Wikipedia, is an actual Confederate $500 note.

CSA-T2-$500-1861

I did a reverse image search and came up with these possible sources for the Williams flyer. Earliest reference I can find is this (incomprehensible to me) discussion thread.

4) The third image from the e-mail is, obviously, problematic.

Horizontal flier

The link to a Democracy Now story is perplexing. Democracy Now is a lefty news network, not the usual information source (I assume!) for nativist troublemakers. Is the intent here to heighten the contradictions on the left? I really don’t know.

Back to Haynes’s e-mail:

Independent of content, outside materials may only be distributed on campus with college permission. Leaving the fliers in the stacks was a violation of these rules.

Really? The College has a history of only enforcing rules against those whose politics it dislikes. The student group Uncomfortable Learning was repeatedly hassled about violating “rules” that Williams never enforced against liberal student groups.

I also find this phrasing confusing. Does the College require permission for outside groups to distribute stuff (which seems sensible) or for the distribution of “outside materials”? That seems nuts. If Williams Democrats want to distribute “outside materials” — like a flyer from the Bernie campaign — do they really need “permission?” I doubt it! I suspect that this is just sloppy writing (and thinking?) from the Administration.

Using security footage, and guided by information from the new report, Campus Safety and Security (CSS) isolated pictures of the individuals we believe responsible. By sharing this information with counterparts at nearby schools CSS was able to help police identify one of the people, who, we learned, resides in another state. He is now banned from campus.

Note the subtle spin. Why bother telling us that he resides in “another state” unless they want us to think that he is far, far away and that we don’t need to worry about it? But if that other state is Vermont, then this guy might live closer to campus than Pittsfield!

Meanwhile, CSS received a corroborating report from a witness who had seen the second individual in the Sawyer lobby during the July 4th reading of the founding documents. The individual was carrying an American flag on a short pole, and inserted themselves into a peaceful student protest at the event. A photo of this person is also included below.

July 4 suspect at protest

1) Kudos to Hayes and Klass for their transparency. The more details — like these photos — which they provide to the community, the better.

2) Can anyone parse the symbol on the hat? UPDATE: Thanks to comments below, seems that this is just a standard “FD NY” — New York City Fire Department — hat.

3) I assume that the “peaceful student protest” referred to is those folks dressed in black who marched in the July 4th parade and then went to the reading. Was every single one of them a student? I have my doubts!

If you have seen them, or have other information that may aid in identifying them, please contact Campus Safety and Security at 413-597-4444. Once a person is banned from campus any attempt to return is considered trespassing and the trespasser may be subject to arrest.

We would like to thank CSS, our colleagues at Bennington College, the Williamstown Police Department, and the Williams community for helping protect the inclusive environment the college is committed to upholding.

Sincerely,

Leticia S. E. Haynes, VP for Institutional Diversity and Equity
Steve Klass, VP for Campus Life

1) The reference to Bennington College makes me think that the banned person lives in Vermont. Does anyone know what group he is associated with?

2) Since this is, obviously, not a false flag operation — unlike many recent events on campus — the closest historical analog is probably Mary Jane Hitler.

3) There are many other issues to discuss here. Worth spending more time on?

Facebooktwitter

Marcus ’88 Moves on Racial Issues, 4

Ken Marcus ’88 is the (recently confirmed) Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, a position which places him at the center of the debate about racial diversity in higher education. Marcus, and his colleagues in the Justice Department, have started the process of getting rid of racial preferences. Let’s spend a week discussing their efforts. Day 4.

The Trump administration’s moves come with affirmative action at a crossroads. Hard-liners in the Justice and Education Departments are moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity in education. And the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the end of this month will leave the Supreme Court without its swing vote on affirmative action while allowing President Trump to nominate a justice opposed to policies that for decades have tried to integrate elite educational institutions.

Note the rhetoric:

1) “Hardliners” are people who object to discrimination/quotas against Asian-Americans. Would the New York Times have used that word in 1925 to describe people who objected to Jewish quotas at Harvard?

2) No one is “moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity.” Ken Marcus does not care how Williams measures “diversity.” Williams can measure diversity however it wants! Marcus (and the rest of the Federal Government) object to Williams — as a recipient of federal funds via student loans — treating applicants differently on the basis of their race.

A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.

The Harvard case is fascinating. It goes to trial in October. Should we provide more coverage? Again, it is unclear if Williams (today) discriminates against Asian-Americans the way that Harvard does. But the demographics and other societal changes mean that, unless we start doing so in the future, Williams will be 40% Asian-American a generation from now. I don’t have a problem with that. Do you?

“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, the president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”

Indeed. Recall my favorite chart:

ccf_20170201_reeves_2

SAT scores are highly correlated with every other aspect of your academic profile: ACT, AP, subject tests, high school grades, teacher recommendations, essay quality, et cetera. Since Asian-Americans make up 50%+ of the highest SAT scorers, they almost are almost certainly 50%+ of the highest ACT, high school transcript, et cetera applicants. Why is Harvard only at 20%? Discrimination. Why is Williams only at 20%? Hard to know! We might discriminate, but, as with Jews almost a 100 years ago, the discrepancy might be caused by applicant preferences.

The key point — and one that smart guys like Roger Clegg and Ken Marcus will focus on — is that discrimination against Asian-Americans is a hard sell. When Marcus was cutting his teeth on affirmative action debates back in the 80s, it was much easier to justify discrimination against white applicants. First, they (being part of the power structure) were not particularly sympathetic victims. Second, their ancestors were plausibly guilty of historical crimes which required restitution. Third, they were such a large majority that a marginal decrease in their numbers did not seem a large price to pay for increased diversity.

I don’t think any of those arguments are going to work in the case of discrimination against Asian-Americans. And once Clegg/Marcus force places like Harvard/Williams to stop discriminating against Asian-Americans, how long will they be able to discriminate against whites?

Facebooktwitter

Marcus ’88 Moves on Racial Issues, 3

Ken Marcus ’88 is the (recently confirmed) Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, a position which places him at the center of the debate about racial diversity in higher education. Marcus, and his colleagues in the Justice Department, have started the process of getting rid of racial preferences. Let’s spend a week discussing their efforts. Day 3.

Under Mr. Marcus’s leadership, the Louis D. Brandeis Center, a human rights organization that champions Jewish causes, filed an amicus brief in 2012, the first time the Supreme Court heard Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In the brief, the organization argued that “race conscious admission standards are unfair to individuals, and unhealthy for society at large.”

Is that brief enough to label Marcus as a “vocal opponent” of affirmative action? If so, every (almost) Republican is one. Again, I suspect that a large majority of Americans — including many EphBlog readers? — would agree that “race conscious admission standards are unfair to individuals.” Although perhaps “unfair” is unduly loaded? Williams treats smart applicants differently then dumb applicants, which is either “unfair” or “necessary to achieve our educational goals,” depending on your point of view.

The organization argued that Asian-American students were particularly victimized by race “quotas” that were once used to exclude Jewish people.

This is beyond dispute, at least at places like HYPS. (Again, it is not clear if Williams (meaningfully) discriminates against Asian-Americans in admissions. As in the case of Jews 75 years ago, Williams may not get as many applications (or as high a yield) as HYP do/did.)

As the implications for affirmative action for college admissions play out in court, it is unclear what the decision holds for elementary and secondary schools. New York City is embroiled in a debate about whether to change its entrance standard — currently a single test — for its most prestigious high schools to allow for more black and Latino students.

If NYC wants to cancel its admissions tests for places like Stuyvesant, Ken Marcus won’t care (much). If NYC (or Williams) wants to change its admissions policies, Ken won’t care (much). What he does care about (a lot!) is whether or not, say, African-American and Asian-American applicants are treated the same, either by NYC or by Williams. If they are not, he is now in a position to bring the full weight and power of the Federal Government against NYC/Williams.

Do you have a problem with that? Tough! You (and I am sure that this applies to 90% (99%?) of EphBlog readers) had no problem when the Federal Government was bossing around private institutions (like Bob Jones University) or local/state governments (like the city of Little Rock, Arkansas). And maybe you were right! But, having created the monster to do “good,” don’t be surprised when the monster turns its pitiless gaze toward you . . .

Facebooktwitter

Marcus ’88 Moves on Racial Issues, 2

Ken Marcus ’88 is the (recently confirmed) Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, a position which places him at the center of the debate about racial diversity in higher education. Marcus, and his colleagues in the Justice Department, have started the process of getting rid of racial preferences. Let’s spend a week discussing their efforts. Day 2.

Ms. DeVos has seemed hesitant to wade in on the fate of affirmative action policies, which date back to a 57-year-old executive order by President John F. Kennedy, who recognized systemic and discriminatory disadvantages for women and minorities. The Education Department did not partake in the Justice Department’s formal interest in Harvard’s litigation.

“I think this has been a question before the courts and the courts have opined,” Ms. DeVos told The Associated Press.

But Ms. DeVos’s new head of civil rights, Kenneth L. Marcus, may disagree. A vocal opponent of affirmative action, Mr. Marcus was confirmed last month on a party-line Senate vote, and it was Mr. Marcus who signed Tuesday’s letter.

1) I am not sure if “vocal opponent of affirmative action” is a fair description. Most Republican are against Affirmative Action, at least against the 200+ SAT point gaps that bedevil schools like Williams. Marcus is a Republican, so it is hardly surprising that he is against it. But “vocal” implies that he goes out of his way to write about this topic, speak about it, tweet about it and so on. Does he? Not that I have seen.

2) Note how the rhetoric is designed to make the reader dislike Marcus. (Being in favor of something is a more positive-sounding description that being an opponent.) There is a reason that the Times does not describe Marcus as a “strong proponent of color-blind policies” or as someone who “wants colleges to judge applicants on a basis other than the color of their skin.” A “vocal opponent” is weird, strange, backward.

3) Nowhere in the article does it mention how popular Marcus’s views are. A clear majority of Americans are against Affirmative Action as it is currently practiced at places like Williams. Popularity does not mean, of course, that Marcus is right, but shielding its readers from these unpleasant facts does them a disservice. Or maybe they like the cocoon?

4) Anyone have any Marcus stories from his Williams days?

Facebooktwitter

Marcus ’88 Moves on Racial Issues, 1

Ken Marcus ’88 is the (recently confirmed) Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, a position which places him at the center of the debate about racial diversity in higher education. Marcus, and his colleagues in the Justice Department, have started the process of getting rid of racial preferences. Let’s spend a week discussing their efforts. Day 1.

From The New York Times:

The Trump administration said Tuesday that it was abandoning Obama administration policies that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, signaling that the administration will champion race-blind admissions standards.

In a joint letter, the Education and Justice Departments announced that they had rescinded seven Obama-era policy guidelines on affirmative action, which, the departments said, “advocate policy preferences and positions beyond the requirements of the Constitution.”

1) Marcus will be at the center of the debate over affirmative action at places like Williams for the next 2 (or 6?!?) years. Very convenient for EphBlog!

2) Say what you will about Trump’s focus/competence/ideology, but, in this part of the Federal Government at least, we are getting serious Republican/conservative policy-making, good and hard. You may dislike Marcus’s ideology, but he is very, very smart. He, and his peers at Justice, are going to do everything in their power to make affirmative action disappear. Underestimate them at your peril.

3) One of my favorite post-election memes illustrates the problem that Democrats/liberals face:

Screen Shot 2018-07-06 at 1.53.22 PM

If the Federal Government were less powerful, then Marcus would not be able to change admissions policy at places like Williams. (And that would certainly be my preference! I think that the Federal Government should leave private institutions like Williams alone.) But my Democratic/progressive/liberal friends want a powerful Federal Government, one with the ability to tell everyone else how to run their affairs. Be careful what you wish for!

Entire New York Times article below:

Read more

Facebooktwitter

Confederation of Deplorables

An anonymous faculty member writes:

My father was a laborer all his life. Our entire home life was shaped by his weekly shift postings: one week, 0700-1600, the next 1600-1200, and the third 1200-0700. My parents grew up and married during the Depression and became solid FDR adherents. So our household was a solid Democratic bastion. And when I came of age, I followed my parents’ lead, registered Democrat, and voted Democrat. And I remain a registered Democrat, perhaps out of familial or working-class-origin loyalty. But, please note, I haven’t voted Democratic in more than 30 years because of the Democrats’ profound leftist lunge and its betrayal of its former constituents, like my parents and me.

I mention this because current party affiliation is not necessarily a reliable indication of one’s political sentiments. I remain a registered Democrat, simply because of my family history. I can’t affiliate myself with RINOs and/or country-club Republicans. I’m a proud Deplorable. Ironically, we owe the detestable HRC for our name. Do you know that there is a small, quiet, but stalwart confederation of Deplorables among Williams faculty members, who not only deplore the rapid (does any other word apply?) Democratic/media attack on President Trump, but who also deplore the radical leftist policies instituted by presidents/deans/administrators of Williams College?

Are there really? I like to consider myself a friendly acquaintance — mostly via e-mail but also in person — of many (most?) of the non-liberal/progressive members of the faculty. I have only met one who thought highly enough of Trump to vote for him.

More importantly, why is this “confederation of Deplorables” so quiet? Many (all?) of them have tenure. Why not speak up? Recall:

With Richard Herrnstein, the late Harvard professor, he [Charles Murray] was about to publish The Bell Curve. There were early warnings that the co-authors would come in for a rough time of it. Murray was in the Herrnstein home, having a nightcap. And he said to the professor, “Exactly why are we doing this anyway?” Herrnstein recalled the day he got tenure, and how happy he was, thinking what it meant: For the rest of his life, he was free to do the work he loved at a place he loved. “I said to myself, there has to be a catch. And I figured out what it was: You have to tell the truth.”

Indeed.

Facebooktwitter

Next Page →

Currently browsing posts filed under "Controversies"

Follow this category via RSS