TheVineyard

There is only one way for justice to be done. Yep. Done. =D

Yes, similar to that. Did you mean that to be a "gotcha" or something? Let's clarify something...I am extremely concerned about the climate concerns and cases of sexual misconduct. One of my friends recently told me that she was actually given a very expensive watch by her professor (not philosophy department but a related department), and was told that she "was extremely attractive...not just your looks but your mind...but you do have extremely attractive looks as well" and has asked her out to dinner multiple times despite her refusal, among many other inappropriate advances. It infuriates me. It also infuriates me that we cannot report this until she has graduated because she is in the middle of applying to graduate schools, and this professor is EXTREMELY vindictive, and has tried to ruin the job prospects of a prospective applicant who backed out of a job as his assistant. He actually called up the person who oversaw the job that she chose instead of his, and sent a long, angry, ranting email trying to expose the applicant's flaws. THEN he sent this email to all of his current students to "proofread" it...he actually was trying to send them the message: don't fuck with me or I will go to all lengths to ruin you. So, because he is this kind of person, my friend cannot report him until she has accepted her graduate school offer, and even then he might try to attack her. She also can't report him now because he is one of her letter writers with letters already sent and she cannot take them back at this point, so she needs his recommendations to be solid if a school follows up with him. I am very aware of these kinds of issues, and I am a huge proponent of making sure people like this professor end up removed from the profession. HOWEVER, just because I am concerned about these kinds of issues does not mean that I will automatically assume that everyone who is accused is guilty. I am not "less serious about it than you" because I wait for sufficient evidence before jumping to the conclusion that this person has done wrong. I have also seen my fair share of false accusations against innocent people. It is inapropriate and unfair to assume guilt because of a single accusation, and that has been my entire point. I am not a "poor climate denier" and I certainly am extremely strong proponent of the right of women and people in general to work in a safe and comfortable environment. Again, this does not mean that I misapply my interest in improving climate by assuming the guilt of anyone accused. That creates a dangerous environment of it's own kind, and it is another that I do not wish to be a part of.

I am simply saying that I have reason to believe that people are behaving certain ways in this discussion for social desirability reasons. I don't know if you in particular are one of those people, but I do have reason to believe that people in general in this conversation are doing it (and I know for a fact that my side of this discussion is underrepresented for social desirability reasons). These claims really aren't bizarre. We know that people claim all sorts of things that they don't believe for social desirability reasons. Do you know what a list experiment is? This explains it and serves as an example in case you aren't familiar: http://www.tessexperiments.org/data/janus297.html . Now, just because this works in many cases doesn't necessarily mean that it will be the case in this one. However, this situation seems like a good candidate due to the fact that people are deciding what to say/whether or not to say anything based on social desirability. I really am not acrobatically charitable when it comes to Ludlow. Where was I so acrobatic? I have no idea what happened and neither do you. That's my whole point. We simply do not know what happened, or if anything happened at all. All we have is conflicting testimony, and evidence hinted at on both sides but not presented. It is very sad that, without serious social repercussion, I cannot simply take the position that we should not assume Ludlow's guilt and we need to keep open the possibility that this whole thing is a false accusation. As I just said earlier in this post, list experiments demonstrate conclusively that people very often do not espouse their authentic beliefs in cases where there are social desirability concerns. There OBVIOUSLY is a massive social desirability pressure in this situation, so we have at least the markings of a situation where list experiment results would differ from professed beliefs.

I just added this to my post, actually, and I'll repeat it here. I also have reason to believe that those who agree with me are under a huge social pressure not to do so. I have received 2 private messages today from members of this forum who agree with me and appreciate that someone is taking the position, but they cannot be seen even questioning the accusation because of social desirability concerns. If people feel like they cannot question the accusation so they won't even post due to social desirability concerns, that same motivation can justify why so many people are willing to publicly take the opposite position. It is socially desirable.

It is disturbing that the entire community here assumed the guilt of Ludlow. That is a perfect example of a "lack of thought process." And yes, I believe many people assume Ludlow's guilt and defend those who do because it is socially desirable to do so. I also have reason to believe that those who agree with me are under a huge social pressure not to do so. I have received 2 private messages today from members of this forum who agree with me and appreciate that someone is taking the position, but they cannot be seen even questioning the accusation because of social desirability concerns. Also, I see this post being downvoted, but I'd like to hear your (or anyone elses) analytical response to it. Not just "you said something I don't agree with so ur dumb." What about this post do you think is incorrect and why?

I am not meaning white-knight in the way that you linked or are talking about. A white knight in the way I am using it is as someone who defends a position because it is socially desirable and will make them look good, win them friends, or grant social capital. Nothing to do with women in particular. MattDest, you say: There is evidence that we should take these allegations seriously (despite your claim that there is "no evidence") which includes the testimony from the university officials which concluded " The complaint alleges that a university official (Ms. Slavin) concluded, "based on the totality of the evidence...that Ludlow engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances toward Plaintiff on the evening of February 10-11, 2012. In particular, Ms. Slavin found that Ludlow initiated kissing, French kissing, rubbing Plaintiff’s back,and sleeping with his arms on and around Plaintiff on the night of February 10-11, 2012." (link) Read that over again, and see if you can see what's gone wrong. You say there is evidence. You cite as evidence that "the complaint alleges that a university official concluded..." So, the university official's report is not itself evidence...it is an alleged report. As the lawyer's statement explains, the report hasn't even been presented to the accused's lawyer.

So...It is inappropriate to suggest the possibility that the accuser might be a liar or crazy, but it is perfectly acceptable to not just suggest the possibility but to assume and take action without evidence on the assumption that Ludlow is a sexually-assaulting power abuser and poster-child for climate issues in philosophy departments? (In fact, this assumption of guilt is the only position that you are socially allowed to take? Keep in mind, by not assuming Ludlow's guilt, you are at least entertaining the possibility that the accuser is a liar or is crazy/completely mistaken. There really isn't any other possibility.)

The lawyer's statement says, "Moreover, to our knowledge, there has never been any recommendation by any Northwestern "committee" that Mr. Ludlow be terminated." So at the very least, this committee information is not public or easily accessible. I certainly couldn't find it. Perhaps this committee does exist, but we cannot take this "committee report" as surefire evidence against Ludlow when none of us have read it or seen it. Keep in mind, the same reports that talked about this committee were the ones who said that Ludlow was accused of rape when he wasn't, so we know those news reports can't be trusted.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that the "issues related to sex and gender based harms/crimes" thread is not the proper place to doubt a woman's testimony. However, everyone has already doubted Ludlow's testimony! Is this only a place for us to assume professors are guilty and that false accusations never happen? Almost every poster has suggested that he is a sex criminal and man to be avoided, even with a total lack of evidence, but you are upset that I suggested that she might be crazy or a liar? Also, Ian, I don't think reasonable skepticism about the validity of a completely unsubstantiated testimony is AT ALL related to problems in some philosophy departments. I don't care if the accuser is a man, woman, or child...it is simply unfair to assume guilt based on a single testimony. It is completely possible that the accuser is crazy or a liar. Do you deny that possibility? Surely you don't. ...So are you suggesting that because there are real climate issues in philosophy departments, we ought to show women deference and not question them when they make accusations? Even if we know nothing about the case? That's absurd. That merely creates a new climate issue: it's called a witch hunt. Do you want to practice philosophy in a climate where we jump to conclusions and assume every accusation is true? I know there is a MASSIVE pressure to white-knight any time a women/sex issue arises. The socially safest thing to do is assume that in every case there is a male professor dominating and taking advantage of a female undergraduate, and then defend to the bitter end that surely this was one of those cases. No evidence? "These issues are hard to prove!" Evidence to the contrary? "That evidence doesn't say anything! I'm going to apply all of my skepticism only to evidence that suggests the testimony was false!" This inconsistency is currently socially valued. If you are ever seen posing some skepticism to a testimony, YOU ARE NOW THE PROBLEM. No. No. Some skepticism is NOT the problem. Waiting to see the evidence before drawing a conclusion is NOT the problem.

Yes, this was the message. "We simply don't know what happened." Yeah I misplaced that preface. Its been moved to the right place. It was an injustice the way that the community responded, assuming his guilt, students on this forum saying we should reject any Northwestern or Rutgers offer, people saying that we should pressure Rutgers to rescind the job offer, etc. It is unjust to do that to someone without hearing the second side of the story. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying that we don't know and we should never have jumped to the conclusion like many did that Ludlow is guilty. Nobody could imagine that perhaps the accusation was false, and that we should wait for the details. Instead, everyone white-knighted and assumed Ludlow's guilt having only read (often libelous) news articles. People threw Ludlow under the bus with no information in order to appear to be the most concerned with climate issues. Instead, they have promoted a new climate issue: a community that assumes full guilt at any hint of an accusation.

Cross posting this from the new thread I made on the Ludlow issue: If this evidence of Ludlow's accuser making friendly communication with Ludlow during the time that the accuser was supposedly trying to kill herself/in the hospital and extremely depressed does exist, and it surely does because they are obviously ready to show it in court, then this accusation, as I feared, has done a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name. Again I say, not every accusation = a terrible person. Not every accusation means you should flee the departments involved. Sometimes accusations are made by crazy people or liars. "Mr. Ludlow denies P's allegations that he sexually harassed or assaulted her. Mr. Ludlow is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit or any lawsuit by P. That, alone, speaks volumes about this case. The authorities have never notified Mr. Ludlow of any criminal complaint nor has he ever been contacted by the police. He certainly has never been charged with any crime, now or ever. Moreover, to our knowledge, there has never been any recommendation by any Northwestern "committee" that Mr. Ludlow be terminated. Mr. Ludlow did not assault P nor did he engage in any inappropriate conduct. We have corroborating evidence that P propositioned Mr. Ludlow. He refused her advances. We are in possession of communications which show that P initiated friendly communications with Mr. Ludlow the day after and then again four and five days after the date on which she now alleges he assaulted her. Some of these communications were via social media. We also have text messages which show that P was very friendly with Mr. Ludlow on February 15, 2012--five days after the alleged assault--and that she, in fact, asked him to meet with her in person and then came to a conference he was attending, asking him to talk with her. At that time, Mr. Ludlow told her, as he had in the past, that he did not want to be romantically involved with her. On April 24, 2012, P's previous attorneys sent a letter to Mr. Ludlow requesting a "settlement." Mr. Ludlow refused to enter into any type of settlement because he had done nothing wrong. We heard nothing more from P until we learned of the lawsuit she had filed against Northwestern. We encourage the press and people reading the articles arising out of this complaint to remember that there are two sides to every story. We also encourage the press to engage in responsible reporting and not to inflame an already difficult situation. These allegations are very serious and will be dealt with in due course through the litigation process."

If this evidence of Ludlow's accuser making friendly communication with Ludlow during the time that the accuser was supposedly trying to kill herself/in the hospital and extremely depressed does exist, and it surely does because they are obviously ready to show it in court, then this accusation, as I feared, has done a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name, and the damage was done before Ludlow even got a chance to share his side/evidence. Again I say, not every accusation = a terrible person. Not every accusation means you should flee the departments involved. Sometimes accusations are made by crazy people or liars. Statement from the lawyer: "Mr. Ludlow denies P's allegations that he sexually harassed or assaulted her. Mr. Ludlow is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit or any lawsuit by P. That, alone, speaks volumes about this case. The authorities have never notified Mr. Ludlow of any criminal complaint nor has he ever been contacted by the police. He certainly has never been charged with any crime, now or ever. Moreover, to our knowledge, there has never been any recommendation by any Northwestern "committee" that Mr. Ludlow be terminated. Mr. Ludlow did not assault P nor did he engage in any inappropriate conduct. We have corroborating evidence that P propositioned Mr. Ludlow. He refused her advances. We are in possession of communications which show that P initiated friendly communications with Mr. Ludlow the day after and then again four and five days after the date on which she now alleges he assaulted her. Some of these communications were via social media. We also have text messages which show that P was very friendly with Mr. Ludlow on February 15, 2012--five days after the alleged assault--and that she, in fact, asked him to meet with her in person and then came to a conference he was attending, asking him to talk with her. At that time, Mr. Ludlow told her, as he had in the past, that he did not want to be romantically involved with her. On April 24, 2012, P's previous attorneys sent a letter to Mr. Ludlow requesting a "settlement." Mr. Ludlow refused to enter into any type of settlement because he had done nothing wrong. We heard nothing more from P until we learned of the lawsuit she had filed against Northwestern. We encourage the press and people reading the articles arising out of this complaint to remember that there are two sides to every story. We also encourage the press to engage in responsible reporting and not to inflame an already difficult situation. These allegations are very serious and will be dealt with in due course through the litigation process."

HPS or Philosophy?

So does anyone better understand the Pittsburgh HPS situation? One acceptance was reported by phone (which is how Pitt typically does it), and that's it. Last year nobody posted acceptances, and I have never seen them do a waitlist looking back the last few years... Huh.

I give this Friday a 5/10. Nothing spectacular, but better than the 1/10 Monday.

You get accepted?

Pls. Pls. Pls. ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ give acceptance ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ

Congrats to the IU HPS folks. Awesome program. They only officially accept the students that they can fund (maybe 3-5 straight off the bat...they don't accept 10 hoping for 5), so being waitlisted is very good news.

I doubt it will slow down the Northeast much at all. Most northeastern and midwestern schools won't cancel unless there is a foot of snow or more. However, I do know that many businesses (and probably, then, schools) are shutting down in the south.

That means it must be Harvard.

I don't even think that really helps the HPS people much, considering that there has only been one of them and it was by phone. Probably their favorite candidate got it early.

I feel like this week we are eating a massive can of beans so that we can explosively diarrheate (?) this acceptance thread with positive news on Friday.

Easy. The tears of my enemies.

The ugly ramifications of a slow Monday+Tuesday.

Thank you. When I googled the issue, I found only the accusation, and that she is suing the university, demanding that it pay for her full tuition and pay for her emotional distress. This article on it (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-northwestern-sex-lawsuit-met-20140212,0,7472417.story) suggested that Ludlow isn't even headed to Rutgers anyway (via Ludlow saying "it was posted on the Leiter Report so it must be true")...