George Mason University to Victims: Get Fucked

[Ralin]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-m ... fd16924ff3

FAIRFAX, Va. ― George Mason University president Angel Cabrera told students Tuesday night that he knows they’re upset about the school hiring Supreme Court justice and alleged sexual assaulter Brett Kavanaugh for a teaching gig. But too bad.

“Even if the outcome is painful, what’s at stake is very, very important for the integrity of the university,” Cabrera said to audible gasps from students in the audience during a two-hour town hall on Kavanaugh’s hire and sexual violence in general on campus.

“Oh, my God,” one female student said aloud.

“Why?” asked another, to no one in particular.

GMU’s student government organized the event, along with student group Mason for Survivors, after the school gave Kavanaugh a three-year contract to teach a summer course at its England campus. The town hall comes after protests, an ad campaign and a student-led petition with more than 10,000 signatures opposing Kavanaugh’s hire. He was confirmed to the Supreme Court in October after an ugly, painful, weekslong Senate fight over Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her in high school.


Dozens of students came out for Tuesday’s town hall, where Cabrera and other school officials took precleared questions from students. The first hour was closed to the public as students shared personal stories of being sexually assaulted. Once the event was open to the public, school officials defended their decision to hire Kavanaugh ― even as none of them seemed to want to take direct responsibility for doing it.

Provost S. David Wu said it was the law school’s choice to hire Kavanaugh, and he saw “no reason for university administrators to override” their decision. Cabrera agreed, emphasizing the need to protect the law school’s ability to hire who it wants. Alison Price, senior associate dean of GMU’s Antonin Scalia School of Law, said she would ensure going forward that faculty would thoughtfully consider a hire’s “implications to all students.”

Students were somewhere between baffled and outraged that none of their school’s leaders saw a problem with giving Kavanaugh a job.

“In hiring Kavanaugh, to what extent did you consider the mental health of the survivors on campus and how that might affect them and their education?” asked one male student, as the room filled with the sound of students snapping their fingers in support.

“Even if in this particular case the outcome is one that you deeply disagree with, the process by which these decisions are made and the reason why we are so firm in defending them is actually essential to the way a university like ours operates,” Cabrera said to sighs in the audience.

David Hamlette, a 19-year-old sophomore, went rogue and shouted out a question that hadn’t been precleared. He asked the school administrators how many of them had kids, and when six out of seven of them raised their hands, he asked how many would feel comfortable with someone facing sexual assault allegations being in close proximity to their children on a campus.

In an incredibly awkward moment, only one of them, Price, raised her hand. Wu half-heartedly raised his hand after a few seconds. But even Cabrera kept his hand down as students began buzzing. Rose Pascarell, GMU’s vice president for university life, jumped in to say the question was “complicated” because she would be comfortable with her son on a campus that had a strong focus on sexual violence prevention.

“I don’t know if I have to keep this professional, but that was like, dumb,” Hamlette later told HuffPost. “Do you feel comfortable having your daughter around an alleged assaulter? I don’t have children and the answer is no. It shouldn’t have been a complicated question.”

It wasn’t just current GMU students in attendance. Sarah Fishkind, a 17-year-old high school senior in Maryland, told the school administrators that GMU had been one of her top three choices for college until the school hired Kavanaugh.

She shared a story about a boy in elementary school blocking her from leaving his room until she took her clothes off, and said part of what helped her get past the fear and humiliation from the incident was her mom telling her she believed her. She said she’s not sure GMU officials understand the connection between stories like hers and their decision to hire Kavanaugh.

“How could Kavanaugh possibly be hired despite Ford’s allegations? Why is the college student that recorded women in the bathroom still on this campus?” asked Fishkind, referring to a disturbing February incident on campus. “A blatantly obvious response by GMU [would be one] that states that first they do not believe Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony and second do not care about the safety of their students.”

She continued: “The beautiful George Mason University is one of my top choices, but do I want to risk my safety and disregard my core values? I can attend one of my other top choices. When I was 10 my mother believed me. Now I need George Mason to believe me.”

Students applauded Fishkind when she was done, and Cabrera told her “it would be an honor” to have her at GMU.

But Fishkind told HuffPost later that Kavanaugh’s hire is factoring into her college choice “a lot” and that GMU students she’s been talking to this week have been telling her not to come to the university.

“They said sometimes they wish they weren’t here,” she said, “and at the same time, they don’t feel like they’re being heard.”

There’s one fairly obvious reason why the university would give Kavanaugh a teaching job: money. Kavanaugh is part of the Federalist Society, a powerful national organization of conservative lawyers that’s been hand-picking President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, including Kavanaugh. The group oversaw GMU receiving an anonymous $20 million gift in 2016 and has been involved in GMU hiring.

HuffPost asked Cabrera after the event if he saw any possibility of revisiting the school’s contract with Kavanaugh if students continue to protest and say his association with the school feels inappropriate or makes them revisit their own sexual trauma.

“No,” he said. “It’s done.”

My first impulse was to say that this is a situation where protesters should mob each and every class session Rape Judge tries teach. Straight up charge in and physically disrupt it. But on re-reading it turns out its being held at branch campuses abroad. Either way, this is not okay.

[The Romulan Republic]

Pretty sure that would result in felony charges. No way they could let anything that came even close to assault a Supreme Court Justice slide. However unworthy said judge might be for the position, for a multitude of reasons.

My advice: hit them where it hurts- in their pocketbook. Boycott the school until Kavanaugh is fired.

Also: the two staff members who publicly raised their hands to say that they'd be comfortable with an accused sexual assaulter being around their kids should be investigated by child protection services (if their kids are still underage).

Edit: I mean, what I'd like to do on a gut level is plagiarize Game of Thrones and march the university staff through the campus while the student body chants "Shame!" But we live in a civilized society of laws. Theoretically, at least.

[Zaune]

The big issue here is the word "alleged". Brett Kavanaugh has not been convicted of sexual assault, and it's not very likely he ever will be for reasons that are -mostly- unrelated to the GOP's blatant disinterest in holding their own people to account: The fact of the matter is, with no independent witnesses or physical evidence it's Christine Blaisey Ford's word against his.

Can we justly argue for denying someone a job they are at least nominally qualified for on the basis of an accusation? Morality aside that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set when one half of the USA's two-party system is willing to fight extremely dirty.

By the way, in case you were wondering? I absolutely do believe Kavanaugh is guilty of what he was accused of. But that's not the point.

[The Romulan Republic]

The big issue here is the word "alleged". Brett Kavanaugh has not been convicted of sexual assault, and it's not very likely he ever will be for reasons that are -mostly- unrelated to the GOP's blatant disinterest in holding their own people to account: The fact of the matter is, with no independent witnesses or physical evidence it's Christine Blaisey Ford's word against his.

Can we justly argue for denying someone a job they are at least nominally qualified for on the basis of an accusation? Morality aside that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set when one half of the USA's two-party system is willing to fight extremely dirty.

By the way, in case you were wondering? I absolutely do believe Kavanaugh is guilty of what he was accused of. But that's not the point.

Technically, can't universities hire whoever they want? Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which means the state can't punish him. By there is no obligation for private individuals or institutions to associate with him.

But if you want a crime with more corroborating evidence to justify not hiring him, try perjury. Everyone who watched his confirmation hearings was witness to that.

[Zaune]

Technically, can't universities hire whoever they want? Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which means the state can't punish him. By there is no obligation for private individuals or institutions to associate with him.

Not technically. But I think they'd have trouble justifying refusing a job offer, or withdrawing one, on that basis without giving him grounds to take them to court for some sort of employment law violation. Or worse, sue one of his accusers for defamation.

And in any case, I'd be a bit worried if a law school didn't take presumption of innocence rather seriously. I wish more people did, to be honest.

But if you want a crime with more corroborating evidence to justify not hiring him, try perjury. Everyone who watched his confirmation hearings was witness to that.

I didn't, but fair enough.

[The Romulan Republic]

Technically, can't universities hire whoever they want? Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which means the state can't punish him. By there is no obligation for private individuals or institutions to associate with him.

Not technically. But I think they'd have trouble justifying refusing a job offer, or withdrawing one, on that basis without giving him grounds to take them to court for some sort of employment law violation. Or worse, sue one of his accusers for defamation.

And in any case, I'd be a bit worried if a law school didn't take presumption of innocence rather seriously. I wish more people did, to be honest.

I'm pretty sure that there is no requirement in US law to hire someone just because they haven't been proven guilty of a crime. Nor to offer a reason for not hiring someone. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a job there, or anywhere.

There might be a problem now if he's signed a contract with the university (I presume he has), depending on the terms of the contract. But he should never have been hired in the first place.

Also, I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US, "presumption of innocence" is a legal principle. It applies to the Justice System, and it means that the government cannot lock you up or otherwise punish you without proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphatically does not mean that you are immune to social or career consequences until proven guilty. A private company can and will fire you on the basis of an accusation (see: every celebrity losing a show because of #MeToo allegations).

I didn't, but fair enough.

Yup, he said some very contradictory things in his confirmation hearings that in all probability were deliberate misrepresentations/lies to Congress, under oath.

[Ralin]

The big issue here is the word "alleged". Brett Kavanaugh has not been convicted of sexual assault, and it's not very likely he ever will be for reasons that are -mostly- unrelated to the GOP's blatant disinterest in holding their own people to account: The fact of the matter is, with no independent witnesses or physical evidence it's Christine Blaisey Ford's word against his.

Honestly, I'm pretty much past the point of giving a shit about presumption of innocence when it comes to these things. Yeah give them a fair trial if possible, but if someone says they were raped I'm going to believe them unless I have a good reason to think they're lying and act accordingly and so should you. Defaulting to treating he said, she said situations as inconclusive is a fancy way of saying that his word and his well-being are worth more.

Can we justly argue for denying someone a job they are at least nominally qualified for on the basis of an accusation? Morality aside that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set when one half of the USA's two-party system is willing to fight extremely dirty.

Yeah we can, and the precedent isn’t dangerous at all because right-wingers have proven they are neither bound by nor interested in follow precedent when it doesn’t suit them. What, you think it’s just not going to occur to the Republicans to try and set up false allegations as a smear tactic if we’re all careful and intellectually honest enough?

[The Romulan Republic]

They already have. There was an attempt to get women to make false allegations against Mueller some months back.

[Ralin]

They already have. There was an attempt to get women to make false allegations against Mueller some months back.

Attempt

[Zaune]

Honestly, I'm pretty much past the point of giving a shit about presumption of innocence when it comes to these things. Yeah give them a fair trial if possible, but if someone says they were raped I'm going to believe them unless I have a good reason to think they're lying and act accordingly and so should you. Defaulting to treating he said, she said situations as inconclusive is a fancy way of saying that his word and his well-being are worth more.

It's easy to say that when you haven't been on the wrong end of it. A few years ago I ended up in an extremely bad situation because someone in authority believed I was guilty of attempted rape, wrongly but with legitimate reasons, and totally refused to listen to my side of the story until my Member of Parliament made them listen.

It was an object lesson about the importance of getting one's facts straight before doing anything that could wreck someone's life.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also: the two staff members who publicly raised their hands to say that they'd be comfortable with an accused sexual assaulter being around their kids should be investigated by child protection services (if their kids are still underage).

You know, considering that you were just accused in another thread of accusing people who disagree with you as being rapists, I would really think you would maybe think more about what you say before you say it.

There are people that believe Kavanaugh was innocent, or the victim of a political witch-hunt. I don't think these people are correct. You don't either. But it's a huge leap from that to literally saying that the only reason these people would disagree with you about Kavanaugh is that they are pederasts.

[Ralin]

You know, considering that you were just accused in another thread of accusing people who disagree with you as being rapists, I would really think you would maybe think more about what you say before you say it.

There are people that believe Kavanaugh was innocent, or the victim of a political witch-hunt. I don't think these people are correct. You don't either. But it's a huge leap from that to literally saying that the only reason these people would disagree with you about Kavanaugh is that they are pederasts.

I think the idea is more that anyone who publicly says they'd be comfortable letting Rapey McAccusedface be around their kids can't be trusted to ensure a safe living environment for their kids. Because they're okay with them being around a rapist, and that's frequently unsafe for children.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also: the two staff members who publicly raised their hands to say that they'd be comfortable with an accused sexual assaulter being around their kids should be investigated by child protection services (if their kids are still underage).

You know, considering that you were just accused in another thread of accusing people who disagree with you as being rapists, I would really think you would maybe think more about what you say before you say it.

I've been accused of a lot of things on this board. Most of them, like Elfdart's disgusting campaign of libel against me for the crime of believing accused rapists should stand trial regardless of their political affiliation, are bullshit. That's all I'll say on the subject, as its bad enough that Eldart's trolling fucked up one thread without it fucking up another.

There are people that believe Kavanaugh was innocent, or the victim of a political witch-hunt. I don't think these people are correct. You don't either. But it's a huge leap from that to literally saying that the only reason these people would disagree with you about Kavanaugh is that they are pederasts.

Bit of a leap there.

I'm not saying the staff who raised their hands are pederasts (though I wouldn't rule it out either). I'm saying that they are by their own admission comfortable with having accused rapists around their children, and thus disturbingly indifferent to their childrens' safety (and fairly shameless about it, if they're willing to admit it in a public forum).

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bit of a leap there.

Um ... what? What are you even referring to? The part of my post you are quoting is me saying that it is a big leap to accuse people of being pederasts, and you are saying THAT statement is a big leap? Seriously what are you even trying to say with this rejoinder?

I'm not saying the staff who raised their hands are pederasts (though I wouldn't rule it out either). I'm saying that they are by their own admission comfortable with having accused rapists around their children, and thus disturbingly indifferent to their childrens' safety (and fairly shameless about it, if they're willing to admit it in a public forum).

Dude, for the love of god, can you just try to understand what my post was saying instead of just ignoring it and restating your original point?

Maybe for a second just imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Trump had his Republican lackeys accuse Obama of sexual misconduct, and pursue an entirely false case against him in the name of soiling his public image and scoring political points. After such a situation, would you then consider it negligent and borderline rapist to later give Obama a teaching position? Of course you wouldn't. Because those allegations would be blatantly incorrect. Now, like it or not, there ARE people that also believe that about Kavanaugh's accusations, due in no small part to Fox News propaganda. I do not agree with these people. But, unfortunately, Kavanaugh has not been convicted of any crimes, which means we can't definitively refute this belief. What this is boiling down to is essentially the old maxim that you should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. It is far, far, far more likely that the staff involved are stupid than they are criminals.

You don't have to agree with me. And I understand that there are a lot of cultural reasons why everyone should take sexual assault accusations seriously even when convictions are not coming. Please don't respond to this all with just, "No, derp, if they don't share the same world-view as me they must be evil negligent child-hating probable rapists."

[The Romulan Republic]

Going to just repeat Elfdart's lie of "TRR calls everyone who disagrees with him a rapist", I see.* Which will then, with sufficient repetition, pass into accepted board lore along with "every time TRR objects to something or has an opinion he's hysterical" and "TRR calls anyone who disagrees with him a Nazi". And no one will call you on it, because everyone knows TRR is a liar, because everyone says TRR is a liar. And then if I report you for libel, I'll probably get in trouble for reporting anyone who disagrees with me.

No, you dumb fuck, I'm not saying they don't care about their kids because they disagree with me. I'm saying they don't care about their kids because they publicly said they'd be okay with their kids being around an accused rapist rather than admit hypocrisy.






*Fun fact: I was once told I "look like a child molester" by someone on this board in response to my posts supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016. I reported that post. To my knowledge, no action was ever taken.

[Jub]

No, you dumb fuck, I'm not saying they don't care about their kids because they disagree with me. I'm saying they don't care about their kids because they publicly said they'd be okay with their kids being around an accused rapist rather than admit hypocrisy.

*Fun fact: I was once told I "look like a child molester" by someone on this board in response to my posts supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016. I reported that post. To my knowledge, no action was ever taken.

While in a broad sense everybody remains somebody's child forever I don't think one should refer to university students who are adults as children. So should an accused rapist be allowed near anybody? That depends on the likelihood of them actually having done it as well as their legal status but as a general rule, they should be isolated until such a time as they aren't a threat to repeat their prior criminal actions.

Also, side note, TRR instead of getting bog down and screaming libel whenever anybody insults you, try actually beating their core argument and ignoring their personal attacks. Insults, even ones that wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere online, have always been allowed on this forum so call the mods and see if they agree with you, buck up, or leave. Half the reason people on this forum are sick of you is just how quickly you resort to shouting libel and ignoring posts, that and that fact that you abandon any thread where people try to corner you into a proper response rather than, say, whatever the fuck your most recent post in this thread was.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, you dumb fuck, I'm not saying they don't care about their kids because they disagree with me. I'm saying they don't care about their kids because they publicly said they'd be okay with their kids being around an accused rapist rather than admit hypocrisy.

*Fun fact: I was once told I "look like a child molester" by someone on this board in response to my posts supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016. I reported that post. To my knowledge, no action was ever taken.

While in a broad sense everybody remains somebody's child forever I don't think one should refer to university students who are adults as children. So should an accused rapist be allowed near anybody? That depends on the likelihood of them actually having done it as well as their legal status but as a general rule, they should be isolated until such a time as they aren't a threat to repeat their prior criminal actions.

Um, I'm not saying university students are children (though some might be technically minors). The university officials were asked if they'd be okay with their children being around someone like Kavanaugh. That's the context here.

Also, side note, TRR instead of getting bog down and screaming libel whenever anybody insults you, try actually beating their core argument and ignoring their personal attacks. Insults, even ones that wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere online, have always been allowed on this forum so call the mods and see if they agree with you, buck up, or leave. Half the reason people on this forum are sick of you is just how quickly you resort to shouting libel and ignoring posts, that and that fact that you abandon any thread where people try to corner you into a proper response rather than, say, whatever the fuck your most recent post in this thread was.

As previously noted, you are not my nanny, and it is not your job to police my conduct on this board. And it is certainly not your place to tell me to leave this forum, or to give me ultimatums. But you're right- insults are not an offense on this board. Lying*, however, is. As is playing backseat mod.

*Lies like "TRR leaves any thread where anyone disagrees with me". But it doesn't matter, just repeat the lie often enough, and I'm sure it will join the board canon as one more thing everyone "knows" I do.

[Jub]

Um, I'm not saying university students are children (though some might be technically minors). The university officials were asked if they'd be okay with their children being around someone like Kavanaugh. That's the context here.

If that's your line of reasoning it boils down to one of two lines of thinking. The officials are either lying, which is a common practice among those in power, or they legitimately don't believe Kavanaugh is guilty. If they're lying, which is something you'll never be able to prove, it's a shitty behavior but one so common as to not be worth arguing over. If they think he's innocent they've done nothing morally or criminally wrong. In either case, I don't see how this is a relevant line to argue along.

Lies like "TRR leaves any thread where anyone disagrees with me". But it doesn't matter, just repeat the lie often enough, and I'm sure it will join the board canon as one more thing everyone "knows" I do.

I could provide examples, but this isn't the right place to do that. Let it suffice to say there's a reason you attract criticism like shit attracts flies and perhaps some introspection is in order.

[The Romulan Republic]

I sometimes will back away from a thread if I am being blatantly harrassed or the thread is being derailed or if-shocker-I am busy with other things in my life that take precedence. I think I've had enough long, drawn-out fights on this board to prove that I don't run at the first sign of argument.

And none of this is the topic of this thread.

And I'm simply responding to what the officials said. Either they're lying, or they're okay with someone like Kavanaugh being around their kids, which could be because they think he's innocent (in which case they're morons and probably misogynists), or because they think it doesn't matter (in which case their scum).

[Jub]

[T]hey're okay with someone like Kavanaugh being around their kids, which could be because they think he's innocent (in which case they're morons and probably misogynists), or because they think it doesn't matter (in which case their scum).

I love how you ascribe motivations of either idiocy or a lack of morals to everybody who has different politics or views that you do. It's entirely possible that they know more about his situation than we do. At the least, they interviewed him which nobody on this board has had the luxury of doing. They could have also looked at the available evidence and made a rational decision based on what they saw and their frame of reference. None of this would make them morons, misogynists, or scum it would simply mean they made a choice you disagree with.

I find all the mudslinging and attribution of malice or stupidity without any attempt to see their point of view to be typical of your style of debate. It's all pathos no substance.

[The Romulan Republic]

[T]hey're okay with someone like Kavanaugh being around their kids, which could be because they think he's innocent (in which case they're morons and probably misogynists), or because they think it doesn't matter (in which case their scum).

I love how you ascribe motivations of either idiocy or a lack of morals to everybody who has different politics or views that you do. It's entirely possible that they know more about his situation than we do. At the least, they interviewed him which nobody on this board has had the luxury of doing. They could have also looked at the available evidence and made a rational decision based on what they saw and their frame of reference. None of this would make them morons, misogynists, or scum it would simply mean they made a choice you disagree with.

I find all the mudslinging and attribution of malice or stupidity without any attempt to see their point of view to be typical of your style of debate. It's all pathos no substance.

I am frankly tired of giving the benefit of the doubt to Republicans, or those who defend them. They usually manage to live down to my worst expectations.

[Jub]

I am frankly tired of giving the benefit of the doubt to Republicans, or those who defend them. They usually manage to live down to my worst expectations.

So you refuse to engage intellectually and just go straight to assumptions when anything vaguely political comes up? Glad to see you admit to it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am frankly tired of giving the benefit of the doubt to Republicans, or those who defend them. They usually manage to live down to my worst expectations.

So you refuse to engage intellectually and just go straight to assumptions when anything vaguely political comes up? Glad to see you admit to it.

Not what I said, but that never matters.

Anyway, I've entertained this derail where you try to play board nanny once again long enough.

[Jub]

Not what I said, but that never matters.

Anyway, I've entertained this derail where you try to play board nanny once again long enough.

You've proven that you don't critically evaluate anything even vaguely political and go in for your team without any critical thought and refusing to even make an argument on your own behalf seals things.

The entire board can see that your only response to my calling you out was to claim I lied, call me nanny, and run away. So your concession is accepted.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think I'm going to go back to just ignoring everything you post. FYI, that's not me ignoring anyone who disagrees with me. Just you.