College Credit to Harass Republicans?

By Professor Doom

     What defines a college course? In times past (and on a few legit campuses today), a college course was put together by a scholar, possibly a team of scholars. The material in the course was assembled with a specific purpose in mind, usually preparation for even more advanced material.

      Once the course was put together, it was then reviewed by other scholars, to determine its legitimacy. Despite the age of our higher education system, we still have new courses appearing on a regular basis. I’ve done the “legitimate new course” thing a few times, and it’s not easy…you only go through the trouble if you honestly believe you’re adding value to education.

     The system I’ve lightly described above is somewhat antiquated, from a time when our universities were run by scholars. Most of our educational institutions are controlled now by plundering administrators. Under the “new system” education is irrelevant, the only thing that matters to these guys is “will it sell?” Thus we have courses on Lady Gaga, Game of Thrones and other topics that honestly have minimal educational value at best.

       Even if the course is legitimate, academic freedom means the professor running the course (not necessarily the designer of the course) has wide leeway in what he or she will do as far as course material. This is why supposedly academic work like “don’t shave” can count as much as a letter grade in a course.

     I sneer too much perhaps, as the “don’t shave” exercise does at least involve the student writing about her experience of not having shaved armpits or whatever. I hardly know what to make of this:

University of Southern Maine Offers College Credit to Travel to DC and Harass Susan Collins

     Senator Collins is, of course, a Republican. I…do not understand how admin can tolerate this, academic freedom notwithstanding. I don’t care if there’s some huge push nowadays to get ever more violent against non-Democrats. That’s wrong,  I do care, I find it vile and reprehensible.

      But how is this even remotely of educational value? How does acting like an ill-mannered thug possibly prepare a student for more advanced academic work? Why isn’t this question being asked?

      Perhaps the headline is sensationalizing things?

The University of Southern Maine if offering credit hours to students if they travel to Washington DC and harass Senator Susan Collins in the hallways and elevator.

Students will receive one credit hour for their political action.

      Wow, a full credit hour for being a thug…so this qualifies as a college course. A typical college degree is around 130 credit hours. We only have a mere 100 senators, so at least you can’t get a whole degree in thuggery.

      Of course, why not extend the program to Congress? 200 credit hours is generally enough for a Ph.D., so extending things would allow students to get doctorate degrees In thuggery by harassing our duly elected representatives throughout Washington DC.

      Ok, it’s clear college credit would only be offered for harassing Republicans…but I suspect this is because many schools have few, if any, Republican faculty.

However there’s a catch.
Only anti-Kavanaugh protesters will be rewarded the extra credit hour.
Pro-Kavanaugh students need not apply.

      I know it’s a little dated quoting the above but…we really do have a problem on this campus.

     Mercifully, this “1 credit hour course in Thuggery” was cancelled:

The University of Southern Maine briefly offered students an accredited “pop up course” that consisted of traveling to Washington, D.C. to protest Senator Susan Collins in an effort to dissuade her from voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Glen Cummings, the president of the university, said Wednesday the course was posted without his knowledge, and was immediately canceled when he learned of it. He added that no university money had yet been spent to organize the Wednesday night trip.

     It’s good that reason prevailed here, but the gentle reader should take heed: on this campus, and likely many others, the Leftist lunacy is so dangerously close to taking over that wildly, wildly inappropriate behavior is now being considered as legitimate college material. Much as the Left is weaponizing baseless allegations, they’re also trying to weaponize our higher education system.

      The time honestly draws near where an overhaul, if not outright tearing down, of many of our campuses becomes the only reasonable thing to do.

       Another short post, as my head spins from another day of cancer surgery. I ask the reader to take the time to consider the implications of the above “course,” especially compared to what it used to take to create a college in the past.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

College Madness: A “Fist Bump” Is Sexual Harassment

By Professor Doom

    In our “criminal justice” system, being convicted of a sex crime is a permanent mark of shame. Lay hands on a girl one day shy of her 18^th birthday, or equally molest an infant, and forever more you’re branded a “sexual predator,” and your neighbors are notified as such whenever you move. That label is really, really, broad, and as much I respect people should have some warning, the range of crimes it covers is too ridiculous for the warning to serve well.

     On campus, because our Poo-Bahs running the places have a disturbing tendency to cover up such crimes, a large family of laws called “Title IX” was enacted to try to cut down, just a little, the cover-ups of campus sex crimes. There are actually a huge number of rules here beyond governing sexual misconduct, such as how to handle disabilities and how to spend money on various sports teams, among much minutia. Much as “sexual predator” is a bit over-used, “Title IX violator” could well mean a serial rapist on campus…or someone who had a minor discrepancy in accounting between the men’s and women’s track teams.

      It can also be an autistic kid who asked for a “fist bump” in celebration over some minor achievement (a fist bump is a momentary touching of the closed hands of two participants, comparable to a “high 5” and certainly less invasive than a handshake).

     Overall, Title IX is a misguided attempt to force the plunderers running a campus to act with integrity. You really can’t legislate integrity, and so the plunderers used Title IX to the establish huge fiefdoms on campus, filled with grotesquely overpaid bureaucrats whose very job depends on finding ever more violations leading to more Title IX “convictions.” How’s that working out?

                        This autistic student asked for a ‘fist bump’ and a selfie. He got two Title IX investigations.

     The student, who has autism, cerebral palsy and a shunt to relieve fluid pressure on his brain, was not allowed to defend himself against allegations in two Title IX investigations this past fall, …

     As I’ve mentioned before, campuses have a kangaroo court system, so a target of this system being unable to defend himself is quite common. And, of course, convictions are pretty reliable.

     What’s really funny here is Title IX is supposed to protect the disabled from unfair treatment. Every semester I am given multiple forms asking for various accommodations, which I grant, as per this federal law. So what’s funny?

Though he receives academic accommodations for his disabilities, he was not offered accommodations in the Title IX process,

     So, the law to establish integrity grants the kid the academic accommodations he would already get in a system with integrity…but gives him no quarter when targeted by that law, because the system has no integrity. Good thing we have all those bureaucrats, eh?

The first incident occurred in the first week of September when Marcus was in the Student Services office and asked a female student working there if he could “fist bump” her. She agreed but soon filed a Title IX complaint.

     Now, she “agreed” to momentarily touch knuckles, probably because the kid had just successfully completed one of the little tasks you must complete in the beginning of the school year.

     Before Title IX, the female student worker could complain, but her superior would think “the worker did it willingly, and it was just a fist bump,” and tell the worker that this is just the sort of very minor annoyance you might experience when dealing with a customer. Then the matter would end, and the worker would go back to work.  With Title IX, well now the superior must report this “inappropriate behavior” to the Title IX fiefdom. Past this point, the kid was doomed.

College staff present at the October meeting had Marcus sign an informal resolution of sexual harassment and told him not to have contact with the female student, according to Aurora.

     And now the kid is officially a sexual harasser. For a fist bump.

     Now, the kid has serious issues, and is often accompanied by an assistant.

Marcus was involved with the college’s musical theater program, and wanted to ask a female student in the program if he could take a selfie with her…assistant approved him asking the question, and the female student said yes.

      The assistant probably made a bit of a mistake here, but we do have evidence nothing untoward happened:

It shows Marcus halfway out of the frame, with his arm extended and his hand behind the female student’s head. She’s seated and smiling.

     So…big deal. Sadly, the student decided to complain:

According to a charge letter dated Dec. 1, the student reported the incident as sexual harassment, claiming that Marcus “forcefully placed [his] hand on her shoulder while taking a selfie with her.”

     So, you have witnesses, photographic evidence…surely Title IX would let this one slide, right?

“…they weren’t allowed to present evidence, …”

      I reiterate: these Title IX departments are all about convictions, and I have much inside knowledge of just how kangaroo these court systems are. Having seen these course destroy evidence provided by the defendant (in order to facilitate the conviction), I guess not accepting the evidence in the first place is better than average here.

Marcus was found responsible and suspended,

     Yeah, no kidding. Now, the kid has numerous issues and isn’t doing so well, academically…I respect him trying, however. On the other hand, it’s very clear the college doesn’t want him on campus and he should probably go to another school. Too bad those “sexual harassment” violations will follow him to any other school, and might well preclude him being admitted.

      I feel the need to point out the issue here isn’t merely the Title IX fiefdom simply exploiting this kid as an easy mark, because there is something else one-sided about all this. If the roles were reversed, the male would end up being punished by being forced to attend mandatory sexual harassment training…but at no point will there be any talk of forcing the females here to attend mandatory autism sensitivity training. Hmm.

      But hey, at least all those Title IX investigators will keep getting $100,000 a year for all their fine work, so that’s something.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

College Sued For “Stealing” Students From Another School

By Professor Doom

    When it comes to sportsball players, colleges “steal” star athletes from each other on a regular basis, at least when it’s time to grab incoming freshmen. It’s little different than in professional sports, which often bid for available players. It’s funny to use the word “steal,” of course, but I can certainly understand how people might claim some ownership of a player on the home team.

     Colleges have been losing students for years now, and bottom line, each individual student represents a great sum of money for a school. How much? Well, a recent set of accusations provides insight into that, as well as other features of today’s higher educational system:

Cutthroat Admission: College Accused of Stealing Students

    Now, this is all just accusations right now, and until the court case is settled the gentle reader should take it as conjecture that anything untoward happened here. I’m fairly confident that the settlement will seal the records and the issue will vanish from the public eye. There are details here which need highlighting now:

Mercy College charges that Long Island University hired one of its deans and he then used confidential information he emailed to himself while still employed to poach students who had accepted admissions offers.

     On the face of it, the charge seems quite reasonable. Time and again I’ve seen an administrator come onto campus, and diligently work to sell out everything he can (reputation and educational integrity being towards the top) to get more students. Then the new admin uses his skills at degrading his school to get a better, higher paying, position at another school, where he can find more things to sell out.

      It’s a sick, demented system. In times past, the “leaders” of a school were chosen from faculty, people who devoted their lives to the school, but now higher education is run by roving bands of wandering plunderers. So, sure, I can see a Dean doing this. Did he at least get a better job at the new school?

Edward Weis was until May 31 the dean of Mercy's business school, and Mercy says he had access to all of the information in the spreadsheets, as well as communications between the college and prospective students.

In June, Weis started as vice president of academic affairs at LIU.

      Dean Wise held his position for 5 years before moving up to Vice President. That’s hardly a lifetime. So, as I’ve documented many times before, he certainly fits the profile of your typical plundering school administrator.

     The allegation here is this Dean, after he moved to the new school, used his insider information to contact students and, basically, give them slightly better offers at the new school. There are supposedly e-mail records to this effect, so it sure doesn’t look good.

Mercy's suit says that as of May 1, it had 42 new students who had accepted offers to enroll in the business honors program. By July 20, nine of them had notified Mercy that they would enroll instead at LIU. Confidential information about all nine of them was in the material Mercy says it tracked Weis sending from college accounts to his private accounts before he left the college.

     So, we’re talking allegedly 9 students here. This is what higher education has come to. Mercy College has over 7,000 students, so we’re talking a bit over 1/10 of 1% of the student base being “meddled with” (to use mainstream media’s latest over-used phrase) is sufficient to bring a lawsuit.

     Just how much money is a student’s head worth?

The loss of a single student, considering tuition, fees, room and board, costs Mercy $32,252, the suit says.

     So each student is worth over 30 grand a year, hence the lawsuit is for $700,000, at least to start. I really feel the need to highlight that at no point does the lawsuit discuss in any way how (allegedly) offering the students better deals is harmful to the students.

      Doing harm, or helping, the students is irrelevant. It’s about the money, and only the money. Again, this is what higher education has come to.

The loss of these students was more damaging, the suit says, because they had high SAT scores and stellar academic records, and many had already participated in Mercy's summer program.

     Wait. These students already knew Mercy well, and still flipped. Those alleged e-mails must be pretty damning to overcome this…I bet they are.

The suit charges that Weis and LIU obtained confidential information to which they were not entitled and then used that information to engage in "unfair competition" with Mercy. The suit says that they acted with "Intentional, malicious and/or wanton disregard" for the rights of Mercy.

     Unfair competition? These aren’t athletes, there’s no equivalent to the NCAA for how you can recruit students. I’m a little confused. I’ve seen quality schools “lose” students to other schools because the latter offer “fast, convenient” degrees. Why is that unfair? There’s been a huge race to the bottom in many schools, lowering standards as they “compete” to scrape up still more students—gotta pay for all those Vice Presidents of Higher Education Degradation somehow.

       Malicious disregard? Again, I’m confused. I’ve never seen an admin give the slightest regard for anything a school stands for. I sure hope Mercy, in addition to those alleged e-mails, has some serious documentation that the admin they hired (and casually replaced) really cared about the school, and really worked to adhere to standards and integrity.

     Good luck with that.

      Turns out, there are some written rules about this sort of thing, a Code of Ethics and Professional Practices:

"Colleges will not knowingly recruit or offer enrollment incentives to students who are already enrolled, registered, have declared their intent, or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions. May 1 is the point at which commitments to enroll become final, and colleges must respect that."

     I’ve seen schools repeatedly and extravagantly violate the code of ethics they agree to when they become accredited, at every opportunity where following that code would cost them even a penny of that sweet student loan money. Once again we have a problem: if other written codes of ethics can be violated at will with no penalty, why should this code be worth more than the pixels which glow when you click on the link?

      Really, all I’m seeing here is just continuation of the “best practices” and policies which school administrations have been following up to this point. Having looted everything else, this new Vice President should be commended for his (alleged) actions…those 9 students will generate enough revenue to pay his salary and luxurious benefits for at least several years.

     It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see more of this in the coming years, and past this point we’ll expect to see admin receive promotions and transfers in exchange for bringing even a handful of students with them to their new school.

      This, indeed, is what higher education has become.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

All College Newspapers Against Kavanaugh

By Professor Doom

     It sure doesn’t take much effort to see something’s very wrong with the media in our country. During the last presidential election, not one of the top 100 papers endorsed Trump, and very few even minor papers did…and yet he won the election. How could it be that essentially every single major news organization could not see anything which the voters could see? It’s a weird blind spot.

     More recent news yields another huge blind spot. Kavanaugh was just about to be confirmed as a supreme court justice, after weeks of vetting, after a lifetime of being scrutinized with great care and detail.

       Then, BOOM, out of the blue, we have a weird allegation of sexual impropriety in high school. He stands accused of, possibly, being drunk at,  possibly, a party during, possibly, a summer when he was, possibly, in high school. Every single corroborating witness has denied the allegations in full…but somehow the allegations allowed  a delay in the vote of confirmation.

       Then comes another vague allegation of possible wrongdoing, again made in a way impossible to fully deny because there are just too few details to refute. I hear there’s another lurid allegation on top of that…but again no actual evidence is provided. Despite the issues with the claims, the FBI will investigate (um…there are allegations against the Clintons with actual dead bodies still awaiting investigation, but I digress…).

      Thing is, we’ve seen this before, again and again, and again. It’s always some guy who’s running against a Democrat or otherwise opposing Dem interests, and the accusers always have a long track record of supporting Dem interests, and the allegations are always made at the very last second.

       Does anyone else wonder at how Republicans are able, with pinpoint accuracy, to identify which women will be rabid Dem supporters 30 years in the future, and to sexually harass those exclusively? Does anyone else wonder why this never, never, never, happens to some independent running a campaign but with no serious chance of winning?

     I remind the gentle reader, at the night of the last Presidential election, the Dems lined up an extra dozen women to make sexual assault allegations against Trump…and we as a country simply ignored the “revelations” breathlessly spewed at us by our mainstream media.

     Our campuses are supposed to be refuges of clear thought, so surely the student newspapers can see what anyone following the basics of politics can see?

College newspapers can’t seem to find ANY pro-Kavanaugh confabs

     Seriously, not one paper can even consider the possibility this is just another hatchet-job? It’s simply incredible that dozens, hundreds of “independent” thinkers can all come to an identical conclusion. Even if these allegations are far more credible than I find them…not even one student thinker could possibly be wrong? This is the implication of them all thinking the same way, after all.

there seems to be no shortage of vigils for Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford over the last couple of weeks, there doesn’t seem to be even onesupporting the US Supreme Court nominee.

     Hey, I’ve nothing against vigils for the alleged victims here, but please understand conjecturing this is merely a smear campaign against Kavanaugh, to the detriment of him, his reputation, his career, and his family, is hardly off-the-rails conspiracy theory. How about one vigil for his daughters, who clearly are suffering horribly regardless of the truth of the allegations? Nothing? Okeedoke.

Take Illinois State University’s Vidette, for example. Titled “ISU students react to Kavanaugh hearings,” not one student in the article offers a word of support for the nominee … or expresses skepticism about the charges against him.

      Seriously, not one skeptical student? Much like with the last election, I can’t help but suspect “media” is shaping opinion by leaving a wide swath of opinions off the table. Only one opinion is supplied:

“I truly hope that Ford’s testimony can sway some Republicans to put aside party and finally believe the stories we’ve heard of Brett Kavanaugh. It was horrible watching the testimony, as Republicans tried to break holes in her story and tried to discredit her honesty. Both in the hearings and the days leading up to this,” Nyland said.

     “Tried”? The gentle reader really needs to note that every single witness supplied by the alleged victim has denied the incident took place or at the least gives a “don’t recall.” Not a single confirmation. This simple fact should come up in every article covering the accusation, and yet it’s mostly consigned to “alternative” news sites.

      More importantly, the campus newspaper I’ve quoted above, like I imagine every campus newspaper, has failed to report this very relevant fact. By all means, if any of my gentle readers can show me wrong here, feel free to make corrections below.

       And feel free to offer suggestions to how most (all?) campus papers fail to see what the bulk of people familiar with one of today’s most common political tactics already know.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

    

Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Rubbish Running Education

By Professor Doom

     Back when I was focusing more on how much education has been degraded (and less on the takeover by edu-fascists), I wrote of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this weird dogma which Educationists rant about extensively.  It’s been over five years since I wrote about it, but a recent book extolling the virtues of this taxonomy was recently pushed at me, and so I thought it worth a re-visit.

       Before continuing, I feel the need to point out that Educationists have been following these sorts of theories for many decades now, and yet education in every conceivable way is worse than it was before they started. Comparing the advances in computers, in medicine, in aeronautics, in basically every human endeavor to the utter and consistent failures of Education as a field should lead one to abandon everything in this field…or at least maybe consider changing some aspect of some of the theories, but instead Educationists endlessly double down,  like other failed believers. 

     Considering how these guys get paid five times as much of me to advance obviously failed theories, perhaps  I should reconsider sticking to provable truths, but I digress.

In this extract from our exclusive e-book, The Professors’ Guide to Bloom’s Taxonomy, award-winning higher education journalist Philip Preville looks at the history and origin of the well-used teaching framework and ponders its future place in classrooms that are increasingly dominated by technology.

     Much like in science fiction, getting awards in education doesn’t mean squat, at least usually. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a well-used “teaching framework,” but I again point out that this stuff is crammed down faculty’s throats ad infinitum. Seriously, why isn’t Education’s track record of abject failure not a factor here?

In 1956, the inaugural Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was published, complete with a triangular diagram showing how educational attainment rises through six different orders of learning, from basic information recall through application to analysis and evaluation.

     For 60 years we’ve been following this “triangular diagram” which is obviously every bit as valid as the government’s “food pyramid” (a dietary guideline guaranteed both theoretically and empirically to increase obesity and diabetes, among other health issues). It’s weird how I can find plenty of critiques of that failed food pyramid, but little criticism of Bloom’s Taxonomy, even though the latter has done as much to destroy human minds as the former human bodies.

     For 60 years Educationists have been using this thing, and we’ve had only failure. There is as yet not one scrap of physical evidence that any aspect of that taxonomy is useful in any way. A person who is a devout believer in Bigfoot is far more reasonable than any Bloom’s-loving Educationist for one simple reason: there’s infinitely more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than Bloom’s Taxonomy.

      Again, why isn’t the 60 year track record of failure, the complete lack of evidence of anything to it, a factor here?

…is arguably the single most influential work in American education,…

     I include the above quote to emphasize I’m not exaggerating how much they push that crap.

Bloom’s taxonomy is foundational knowledge for every undergraduate program in education and in cognitive psychology. Though it was initially intended simply as an assessment aid, it has become an emblem for curriculum design, used to set learning objectives and design classroom activities.

     Please note I’m not putting aspersions on Bloom here, as he simply provided a very crude, unreliable, and untestable guideline for knowledge that has been demented into something far past its intention, much less usefulness.

…Bloom’s taxonomy has been revised only once—proof of the concept’s durability and timelessness.

      Proof? What? The slavish devotion these guys have to Bloom’s is scary. Encyclopedias get revised every year…are they not durable or timeless? On the other hand, my “What I did last summer” essay from primary school has never been revised, not even once….so I guess it’s even more durable and timeless? Are there really no rational thinkers in Education able to question this sort of lavish praise?

K-12 teachers were all steeped in Bloom’s taxonomy as part of their education degrees. College faculty, who typically don’t study teaching before becoming teachers, often begin their instructional careers—and even continue for years—without Bloom’s help.

      The fecklessness here is breathtaking. It’s abundantly clear our K-12 system has been failing horribly for nearly a century, while our higher education system managed to remain pretty good up until the last 20ish years. From this, one should conjecture Bloom’s is not remotely necessary for good education, and could also wonder if it actually makes education worse.

      Of course, higher education is failing as well. Could Bloom’s be a factor here?

Increasingly, they can’t do without it [Bloom’s]. More and more state accreditors and university administrations are demanding that faculty clearly state the learning objectives for each of their courses. Professors must then make good on those objectives: planning…and assessing their progress both on the fly and at semester’s end…

    So, instead of relying on known successful techniques, faculty are increasingly being forced to go with known failing techniques. It obviously isn’t working, but the book offers a reason:

And today’s distracted students are disoriented in the classroom, unclear on how to learn in a college setting.

      How does this chucklehead award-winning journalist not connect the dots here? The lost students are coming from a system steeped in Bloom’s garbage…how can he not see that Bloom’s isn’t working in the public schools, and how can he double down on the obvious failure by supporting putting more of it in higher ed?

   Why aren’t these questions obvious to ask?

   The gentle reader can read the free book if he pleases but my point here is this is what faculty have to deal with: endless propaganda from a cult caste that is fundamentally incapable of asking even simple questions, much less changing course in the face of reckless failure.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

Gay Professor Officially Didn’t Harass Gay Student In Sexual E-mails. It Was “Code”!

By Professor Doom

     While the Leftist takeover of many of our campuses is disconcerting, there is, sort of, a ray of hope here: this ideology is not merely destructive, it ultimately is self-destructive, as much so for campuses as it was for countries.

     Part of the reason this ideology is so destructive is you can’t really defend against any charges they make. Everything you say is interpreted as a micro-aggression, or some sort of harassment…you can’t win against their charges, and so they run roughshod over all their proclaimed “enemies.” Yes, today those enemies are predominantly white, heterosexual males, and that’s certainly a drag if you’re in that broad category…but as they take down everyone in their way to power, they establish rules, and these ridiculous precedents eventually create a system which collapses when they start pointing fingers at each other.

     The time of this eventual self-destruction came close recently, at a school notorious for just about everything but education, NYU. I hardly know where to begin even describing the mess:

Feminists Rally to Defense of Female Professor Accused of Sexual Harassment by Male Student

     Every version of the story has its own spin, but the heart of the matter is a lesbian professor exchanged some fairly personal e-mail with a male homosexual student, who somehow interpreted the communications as sexual harassment.

Me: “You look quite made up today.”

--a student walked into class late, making a

 bit of a show of it. She was wearing a significant amount of makeup. Yes, I was investigated for sexual harassment based on this one comment. Admin could have destroyed me over this, but at the time I was playing ball, and so received a pass.

  

    Fair disclosure: I’ve been accused of sexual harassment as described in detail above. Yes, sexual harassment is a real thing, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to set up whole fiefdoms to search for it, as everyone’s job in that fiefdom is to find it to get rid of enemies of the system, or to cover it up for friends of the system.

       Is the professor here a friend, or enemy, of the system?

Avital Ronnell, a leading professor of feminist philosophy…

       Hmm, yeah, I’m leaning towards “friend” based on that description. Now, is the accuser a friend, or enemy, of the system?

Ronnell identifies as a lesbian; the student she is accused of harassing is gay, and now married to another man.

      And here we bump into the problem with using identity politics to determine guilt, or innocence. Instead of using politics, we have to use permitted rules of engagement…rules which have been established through a convoluted series of arbitrary precedents.

     What kind of claims are we talking about here?

The accuser, Nimrod Reitman, claimed that Ronnell pressured him into an amorous relationship. She would visit him at his home, climb into bed with him, and force him to kiss and touch her.

     The whole “me too” movement says you need to always believe the accusers first, but I have to concede, considering the claimed sexual proclivities of the people involved, those are some extraordinary allegations. We’ll be wanting some evidence, right? Well, there are numerous e-mails, and a few snippets below:

"I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat," she wrote in an email on June 16, 2012, after the Paris trip. "I will try very hard not to kiss you — until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy deferral!" In July, she wrote a short email to him: "time for your midday kiss. my image during meditation: we're on the sofa, your head on my lap, stroking you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you, headache gone. Yes?"

      Feminists came out in support of the professor in an amazing display of hypocrisy, but ultimately between the accusations, the evidence, and the political climate, there was only one outcome which would be “fair” based on precedent:

“…has been forced to take a year off after NYU determined that she had sexually harassed a male student. “

     I imagine it’s with pay, but still we at least have a slap on the wrist, right? When white males get nailed with these charges, they get their lives entirely destroyed. I’m glad we’re now establishing a precedent that even with very strong evidence, no real harm will come to the aggressor.

      Turns out, there’s more to it than the slap on the wrist. He’s bringing a lawsuit against her, because he says the affair impacted his ability to find a job despite his being gay (and, presumably, his associated Ph.D.). She has a defense planned:

“…said that her relationship with him was not sexual and that affectionate emails they exchanged were just "gay-coded" correspondence…”

    Hmm, it was all code? That’s…going to be a tough precedent. Imagine if this actually works, you’ll never be able to establish a sexual harassment case again, as all written evidence can be passed off as “code.”

       I’m dying to see the feminists come out and chastise the professor for trying this defense, every bit as laughable as the “I was just joking” defense. More accurately, I’ll likely be dead (as well as several generations past me) before these notoriously hypocritical folk act with some level of honesty here.

    

She also said her messages were reciprocated. In her statement, she included several purported excerpts of their emails, in which she alleges Reitman referred to her as "beloved and special one," ''Baby" and "Sweet Beloved."

     Ah, the “she wanted it, too” defense, which likewise never works when a male is the aggressor. It really will be delightful to see if the professor gets ultimately destroyed, or if all the defenses like “I was just joking” and so on are suddenly valid again.

       Either way, the system will have check-mated itself.

       It really is interesting how the media presents this professor with words like “prominent,” “world-renowned,” and “leading,” adjectives which sure never seem to come up when enemies of the system face such charges.

      I concede that the system didn’t collapse under the weight of its hypocrisy at this point in time, but I still believe one more log has been placed upon it. Sooner or later, there’ll be no choice but for a mass awakening and widespread realization that identity politics simply isn’t a way to run a campus…or anything else.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com