The thought police and montana

[GrizPony]

George Will is an intellectual and that brand of thought has no place in the new liberal order.

George Will is an intellectual - I will give him credit for being able to express his thoughts rationally and coherently for others to read, unlike other conservative "intellectuals" like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sean Hannity, etc.

If you read Will's piece on the IRS debacle, he starts to lose credibility by comparing IRS-gate to WaterGate. Even Will acknowledges the differing circumstances that makes the scenarios incomparable, but still the same it sounds good to drag a Democrat into that abyss without being able to prove it. Take him with a pound of salt, recognize his agenda, and move on.

That is your retort? The article wasn't on the IRS it was on UM. Nice mis-direction play. An intellectual, you are not. :thumb:

If you are the measure of an intellectual I shall take that as a compliment.

George Will is a drama queen, albeit an intelligent one. His opinions are not fact and his predictions do not always become true. That's why we should take this editorial, just like any other, with a grain of salt.

So you aren't capable of attacking his opinion with specificity and lack the intellect to make a cogent argument for the new DOJ policy. Very intellectual. Got it. :roll:

 

[grizonbob]

Like others here, I'm not too impressed by those who debate by resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than offering some substance on the issue at hand.

Cathy Young, who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle and Reason magazine, offers her own take on the UM situation. She is a civil liberties advocate, and she's concerned about the impact this could have on accused students.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-more-government-overreach-on-campus-sexual-harassment-1.5333848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of which has made me wonder: Why hasn't the ACLU spoken out against this?

Of course, the ACLU, unfortunately, has wandered away in recent years from its traditional role of being a leading advocate of civil liberties.

 

[griz4life]

The Montana ACLU would never tread on something like this.
It's sad that many people will look at UM's "deal" with DOE and DOJ as a step forward. What it really is, is Royce Engstrom throwing more people under the bus instead of doing what is right.

 

[Grisly Fan]

The Montana ACLU would never tread on something like this.
It's sad that many people will look at UM's "deal" with DOE and DOJ as a step forward. What it really is, is Royce Engstrom throwing more people under the bus instead of doing what is right.

For RE to do what is right would require his complicity in helping to create the hysteria in the first place. In his zeal to be a "man of action" he went "ready, fire, aim" (where "fire" literally meant fire). Leaders are expected to be calm under fire and not feed the reactionary flames that burn when special interests get riled. If RE admitted he over-reacted then RP and JOD might have ammunition should they decide to use it (if they even could in light of their contracts). RE is in-between a rock and a hard place. He is trying hard to ride the storm out.

 

[EverettGriz]

While I, too, believe the DOJ overstepped their bounds, unlike many of you, I don't think the practical applications will have remarkable consequences on campus. The standard set is really no different than that most of us face every day in the workplace, and a quick peek at your firm's HR Manual will confirm that.

But for those of you feel like this:

instead of doing what is right

I'm curious what you think "right" is or should have been for Engstrom. Could he have fought (and almost certainly lost) the battle with the DOJ? Perhaps, and I'll concede that may even have been the noble thing to do. But would it have been the "right" thing to do? I don't believe so. I think doing that would have had very negative consequences on UM and most likely the football program, and UM would still be faced with the same DOJ ruling a few months from now handed down at some other college or university. What possible benefit could there have been by getting trucked trying to be a roadblock to the road grader position the DOJ is taking on these matters?

As the old saying goes, sometimes you win by losin'.

 

[tgreseth]

You're not going to make this about politics? I'm disappointed. I so enjoy learning the political affiliations of eGriz posters! Great comment BTW

YITB

 

[PlayerRep]

While I, too, believe the DOJ overstepped their bounds, unlike many of you, I don't think the practical applications will have remarkable consequences on campus. The standard set is really no different than that most of us face every day in the workplace, and a quick peek at your firm's HR Manual will confirm that.

But for those of you feel like this:

instead of doing what is right

I'm curious what you think "right" is or should have been for Engstrom. Could he have fought (and almost certainly lost) the battle with the DOJ? Perhaps, and I'll concede that may even have been the noble thing to do. But would it have been the "right" thing to do? I don't believe so. I think doing that would have had very negative consequences on UM and most likely the football program, and UM would still be faced with the same DOJ ruling a few months from now handed down at some other college or university. What possible benefit could there have been by getting trucked trying to be a roadblock to the road grader position the DOJ is taking on these matters?

As the old saying goes, sometimes you win by losin'.

It is absolutely NOT correct to say the standard set is the same as what is in the workplace and in HR manuals. One huge difference is the change in the standard (blessed by the US Sup Ct) that the view of the harassed person/woman is to be judged objectively, i.e. what would a reasonable woman think in the circumstances, and not from a subjective standard (what did the accusing woman think). This is very important. Another difference is that more PC stuff has crept into the new university policy. Some of the required hostile work environment requirement appears to have been put aside.

Many people, including legal experts, believe what has been done in these new standards is unconstitutional and will eventually be overturned. My view is that the changing of the student code standard from clear and convincing to preponderance is also unconstitutional.

Please stop saying things that are completely inaccurate. You've been corrected on this previously, but it didn't seem to take.

 

[EverettGriz]

PR = the god of all. :roll: :lol:




FWIW, you're wrong. But arguing with you is about as enjoyable as a cavity search, so I'll bow out and let my statement stand on its own. There isn't room on my 4 T hard drive for your ego.

 

[griz4life]

And losing to DOJ would have meant what exactly, Everett? What in DOJ's findings was actionable? Do tell.

You might want to reread your employee handbook, too if you think that merely feeling uncomfortable constitutes harassment. Not that a university should ever be compared to a workplace.

 

[Silvertip]

George Will is an intellectual and that brand of thought has no place in the new liberal order.

George Will is an intellectual - I will give him credit for being able to express his thoughts rationally and coherently for others to read, unlike other conservative "intellectuals" like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sean Hannity, etc.

If you read Will's piece on the IRS debacle, he starts to lose credibility by comparing IRS-gate to WaterGate. Even Will acknowledges the differing circumstances that makes the scenarios incomparable, but still the same it sounds good to drag a Democrat into that abyss without being able to prove it. Take him with a pound of salt, recognize his agenda, and move on.

Those salmon of yours may have a better chance of flip-flopping their way back to Capistrano well before you show any ability to stay somewhat close to the subject at hand...

 

[EverettGriz]

And losing to DOJ would have meant what exactly, Everett? What in DOJ's findings was actionable? Do tell.

You might want to reread your employee handbook, too if you think that merely feeling uncomfortable constitutes harassment. Not that a university should ever be compared to a workplace.

You missed the point of my post. I agree I think the DOJ overstepped, and stated that clearly. But you're wrong that feeling uncomfortable couldn't rise to the level of harassment. It can, and does. None of which negates my argument that in practice little will change on campuses as a result of this.

As for losing to the DOJ, I really don't know what that would have or could have meant. My hunch is that the report wouldn't have been as clean if UM administration had seemed like obstructionists. I just don't see it as capitulation when you agree to what was inevitable, particularly if it makes you look a little better.

 

[PlayerRep]

And losing to DOJ would have meant what exactly, Everett? What in DOJ's findings was actionable? Do tell.

You might want to reread your employee handbook, too if you think that merely feeling uncomfortable constitutes harassment. Not that a university should ever be compared to a workplace.

You missed the point of my post. I agree I think the DOJ overstepped, and stated that clearly. But you're wrong that feeling uncomfortable couldn't rise to the level of harassment. It can, and does. None of which negates my argument that in practice little will change on campuses as a result of this.

As for losing to the DOJ, I really don't know what that would have or could have meant. My hunch is that the report wouldn't have been as clean if UM administration had seemed like obstructionists. I just don't see it as capitulation when you agree to what was inevitable, particularly if it makes you look a little better.

I can't deal with your point, whatever it is, because you continue to grossly misstate the law on this subject, and you continue to miss the main issues being pointed out and discussed in these various articles.

Again, feeling uncomfortable does not, if it is not a reasonable reaction reaction as judged by the standard of a reasonable woman in the circumstances, amount to sexual harassment--in the US workplace.

Your argument that little will change in the university setting is also not correct, in my view. Sooner or later, a woman/person who is not reasonable in her/his reaction, will bring a claim, and the university code process will conclude that the accused is guilty. Wording and standards mean alot, and changed wording and standards results in changed results.

As for the university, I thought universities were supposed to stand up for what's right and for principles, including constitutional principles, and not just roll over and give in if it's convenient for them or so they can further submit to PC culture.

 

[EverettGriz]

I thought universities were supposed to stand up for what's right and for principles

A noble idea, and probably correct philosophically.

But I think it's safe to say that if that were the standard for universities in reality, there wouldn't be college athletics -- as they are today -- to begin with.

 

[IdaGriz01]

I thought universities were supposed to stand up for what's right and for principles

A noble idea, and probably correct philosophically.

But I think it's safe to say that if that were the standard for universities in reality, there wouldn't be college athletics -- as they are today -- to begin with.

For a long time, academia has been on a "slippery slope" on many ethical issues. Money (or lack thereof, for state institutions) pushed many far over the edge on athletics. With the Olympics, and "society" giving up on the "amateur" athlete ideal -- not a reality back in the day (Ancient Greece) anyway -- it was/is too easy for big-time athletics programs to follow suit.

We might concede that they have lasted longer on "academic freedom," and all that implies. But I would have to say the concession on sexual harassment criteria represents a "step function" in how they might handle issues of free speech and/or common discourse.

As for the ACLU: Don't get me started. They seem more interested in keeping nativity scenes off public property than anything that involves the rights of "common folks" as defined by the Bill of Rights (and, no, I am not a Christian).

 

[Jerry Punch]

A point to be made here is how truly incompatible the conservative position of protecting women's rights can be. In one position, George Will disciples would espouse the necessity of making abortion illegal. In the same platform, they would restrict a woman's right to report sexual abuse, either verbal or physical. Further, they would have this all regulated by a strong federal government since the states are too diverse and unpredictable to give us any consistency on a national basis.

It can't work both ways. A woman's right to speak out is just as valid as a man's right to speak out against his accuser and vice versa. This idea of "thought police" is not as monolithic as George Will suggests. The conservative brand trickles down to school policies and the teaching of both abstinence only education and creationism. Conservatives advocate teaching of those principles at the expense of others. If that doesn't suggest "thought police" then I don't know what does.

George Will also draws a tenuous link between radical feminism and today's DOJ policies. He quotes the conclusion of one woman to support this position. It may have influenced today's position in some way, but to call it the cause of that position is as reasonable as linking the legalization of Roe v. Wade to decreased crime rates in the 1990s and beyond.

 

[GrizPony]

A point to be made here is how truly incompatible the conservative position of protecting women's rights can be. In one position, George Will disciples would espouse the necessity of making abortion illegal. In the same platform, they would restrict a woman's right to report sexual abuse, either verbal or physical. Further, they would have this all regulated by a strong federal government since the states are too diverse and unpredictable to give us any consistency on a national basis.

It can't work both ways. A woman's right to speak out is just as valid as a man's right to speak out against his accuser and vice versa. This idea of "thought police" is not as monolithic as George Will suggests. The conservative brand trickles down to school policies and the teaching of both abstinence only education and creationism. Conservatives advocate teaching of those principles at the expense of others. If that doesn't suggest "thought police" then I don't know what does.

George Will also draws a tenuous link between radical feminism and today's DOJ policies. He quotes the conclusion of one woman to support this position. It may have influenced today's position in some way, but to call it the cause of that position is as reasonable as linking the legalization of Roe v. Wade to decreased crime rates in the 1990s and beyond.

So, again, you can't respond to the charge that the new "policy" changes the standard of proof from "innocent until proven guilty" to "preponderance of the evidence". You offer a diatribe on abortion and creationism to obfuscate your intellectual incompetence on the issue that impacts UM because you have no answer. As a liberal, you totally accept the innocent until proven guilty for EVERY crime, except sexual harassment or rape. Do you see any Constitutional issues with you position or does it work perfectly in your politically correct mind?

 

[PlayerRep]

A point to be made here is how truly incompatible the conservative position of protecting women's rights can be. In one position, George Will disciples would espouse the necessity of making abortion illegal. In the same platform, they would restrict a woman's right to report sexual abuse, either verbal or physical. Further, they would have this all regulated by a strong federal government since the states are too diverse and unpredictable to give us any consistency on a national basis.

It can't work both ways. A woman's right to speak out is just as valid as a man's right to speak out against his accuser and vice versa. This idea of "thought police" is not as monolithic as George Will suggests. The conservative brand trickles down to school policies and the teaching of both abstinence only education and creationism. Conservatives advocate teaching of those principles at the expense of others. If that doesn't suggest "thought police" then I don't know what does.

George Will also draws a tenuous link between radical feminism and today's DOJ policies. He quotes the conclusion of one woman to support this position. It may have influenced today's position in some way, but to call it the cause of that position is as reasonable as linking the legalization of Roe v. Wade to decreased crime rates in the 1990s and beyond.

No one, and certainly not Will, is exposing what you just said, i.e. "In the same platform, they would restrict a woman's right to report sexual abuse, either verbal or physical." That's just a blatant lie by you.

Will and others don't support: the changing/lowering of standards for sexual harassment/assault conviction in a university court, the changing of the objective standard for sexual harassment (which has been blessed by the US Sup St), to a subjective standard, and the continuing movement of university speech policies to a more PC standard. These, or some of these, changes are probably unconstitutional.

Do you support the new Missoula police policy for investigating sexual assault complaints, in which the accuser is to be believed until proven otherwise? Is that not arguably unconstitutional and does it not appear to conflict with the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused?

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution to remove the presumption of innocence for the accused, lower the standard of conviction from beyond a reasonable doubt, and allow convictions on less than a jury vote, in sexual assault matters? That's the direction that the DOE, the Dear Colleague letter, and the recent UM-DOJ agreement are going.

 

[Jerry Punch]

LOL, Playerrep. So, your point is that the accused should be believed until proven otherwise? Of course our system is innocent until proven guilty, but how does that really apply in practice? People charged with all sorts of crime ranging from murder to simple assault are held on bond and have their rights restricted in some way. Is it unconstitutional for an accused abductor to be held on an 8 million dollar bond, essentially keeping him in jail until he is convicted? Should authorities DISbelieve the victims in the Cleveland kidnapping and rape case and believe the accused until he it is proven otherwise?

I wish I could say that this sudden increase in justice for Defendants is based solely on a continuing dedication to criminal justice, but it is not. The harsh reality is that many Defendants are guilty as charged. Some, of course, are not. Does that mean we shouldn't put protections in place for potential victims? Does it mean we limit their avenues to pursue justice?

The criminal justice system is already slanted heavily towards Defendants. Do you want us to move to a more Middle-eastern based system of justice for alleged rape victims and stifle their ability to come forward together? There is no other way to open up avenues for justice than to place limits on freedom for the accused. They shouldn't be able to contact their alleged victims. They shouldn't be able to roam free because they are presumed innocent. Wake up Peter Pan, Count Chocula. This isn't a theoretical debate. It's all about the practice.

 

[Jerry Punch]

A point to be made here is how truly incompatible the conservative position of protecting women's rights can be. In one position, George Will disciples would espouse the necessity of making abortion illegal. In the same platform, they would restrict a woman's right to report sexual abuse, either verbal or physical. Further, they would have this all regulated by a strong federal government since the states are too diverse and unpredictable to give us any consistency on a national basis.

It can't work both ways. A woman's right to speak out is just as valid as a man's right to speak out against his accuser and vice versa. This idea of "thought police" is not as monolithic as George Will suggests. The conservative brand trickles down to school policies and the teaching of both abstinence only education and creationism. Conservatives advocate teaching of those principles at the expense of others. If that doesn't suggest "thought police" then I don't know what does.

George Will also draws a tenuous link between radical feminism and today's DOJ policies. He quotes the conclusion of one woman to support this position. It may have influenced today's position in some way, but to call it the cause of that position is as reasonable as linking the legalization of Roe v. Wade to decreased crime rates in the 1990s and beyond.

So, again, you can't respond to the charge that the new "policy" changes the standard of proof from "innocent until proven guilty" to "preponderance of the evidence". You offer a diatribe on abortion and creationism to obfuscate your intellectual incompetence on the issue that impacts UM because you have no answer. As a liberal, you totally accept the innocent until proven guilty for EVERY crime, except sexual harassment or rape. Do you see any Constitutional issues with you position or does it work perfectly in your politically correct mind?

You did not accurately sum up my presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Please see the post directly above this one.

 

[GrizPony]

I hit the nail on the head and you missed. The UM policy is NOT a criminal proceeding and has none of the attendant protections. Innuendo alone can now be used to deny a young man an education thanks to the new pc policy. You are fine with that? :?