Issues related to sex- and gender-based harms/crimes

[Establishment]

Vineyard, a couple of things are worth noting:

 

(1) Nobody here is "white-knighting" (which is an awful, ugly term to begin with). Nobody is pretending that false accusations do not happen - only that the actual rate of false reporting is very low, and that your response is ridiculous considering the source of your information. 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)

 

(2) Undermining the credibility of the woman in question by claiming she might be 'crazy' or a 'liar' is absolutely uncalled for, and your thread title 'New information on the Ludlow case suggests the whole thing might be made up... ' is too suggestive given that it's based entirely on a statement from the defense attorney. The evidence that the defense attorney has wouldn't even suggest that she is lying about the charges (see Hypatience's link about victim's responses to sexual assault). 

 

Just for some additional points regading why we should take these allegations seriously, and that it's not simply the claim of one party against another (which is hardly reason enough to justify Vineyard's questionably aggressive stance)... but a third party at NU, a professor, has stated that she went with the victim to the police to file a report.

[TheVineyard]

I'm sorry, but this is such a telltale, that you would frame people's position as them white-knight-ing.

 

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.

Edited February 15, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Establishment]

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.

 

Okay, but that's not much better. You honestly want to claim that people are taking the position they are on this issue simply because it's socially desirable and will make us look good? The thought process (or lack thereof) behind that is pretty disturbing.

[TheVineyard]

Okay, but that's not much better. You honestly want to claim that people are taking the position they are on this issue simply because it's socially desirable and will make us look good? The thought process (or lack thereof) behind that is pretty disturbing.

 

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."

 

 

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.)

 

 

What about this post do you think is incorrect and why?

Edited February 15, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Establishment]

It is disturbing that the entire community here assumed the guilt of Ludlow. That is a perfect example of a "lack of thought process."

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."

 

 

I don't even want to bother with that, because you've asked that question before and people have tried to clarify for you. I want to press the fact that you want to ascribe to the lot of us a particular intention, which, speaking for myself, doesn't in fact hold. By what rationale do you have on our persons to claim that we do what we do for some particular intention?

[TheVineyard]

I don't even want to bother with that, because you've asked that question before and people have tried to clarify for you. I want to press the fact that you want to ascribe to the lot of us a particular intention, which, speaking for myself, doesn't in fact hold. By what rationale do you have on our persons to claim that we do what we do for some particular intention?

 

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.

Edited February 15, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Establishment]

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.

 

So because some people have divulged to you the psychology behind their actions, you have the right to claim the psychology behind the actions of others? That doesn't follow at all.

 

I'm going to drop this thread because it's clear to me TheVineyard is just trolling for some laughs during this anxiety producing application season. That's a more comforting explanation behind some of the bizarre claims I'm reading here.

[Hypatience]

Jeez, TheVineyard, you're so acrobatically charitable when it comes to Ludlow's motives, but you don't even think we're arguing authentically? The notion that we're all trying to look like blue ribbon allies for GradCafe cred or whatever is borderline comical. I hope your Occam's razor is still on warranty.

 

I don't see any point in engaging you further, so I think I'm probably done doing that. I am going to make myself a really nice white-sauce pasta and open a bottle of wine, though. It is Saturday, after all!

[MattDest]

Jeez, TheVineyard, you're so acrobatically charitable when it comes to Ludlow's motives, but you don't even think we're arguing authentically? The notion that we're all trying to look like blue ribbon allies for GradCafe cred or whatever is borderline comical. I hope your Occam's razor is still on warranty.

 

I don't see any point in engaging you further, so I think I'm probably done doing that. I am going to make myself a really nice white-sauce pasta and open a bottle of wine, though. It is Saturday, after all!

 

The line I highlighted is hysterical. I think I'll also take leave of this thread, it doesn't seem like there's much point to engaging Vineyard. 

[TheVineyard]

So because some people have divulged to you the psychology behind their actions, you have the right to claim the psychology behind the actions of others? That doesn't follow at all.

 

I'm going to drop this thread because it's clear to me TheVineyard is just trolling for some laughs during this anxiety producing application season. That's a more comforting explanation behind some of the bizarre claims I'm reading here.

 

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.

 

Jeez, TheVineyard, you're so acrobatically charitable when it comes to Ludlow's motives, but you don't even think we're arguing authentically? The notion that we're all trying to look like blue ribbon allies for GradCafe cred or whatever is borderline comical. I hope your Occam's razor is still on warranty.

 

I don't see any point in engaging you further, so I think I'm probably done doing that. I am going to make myself a really nice white-sauce pasta and open a bottle of wine, though. It is Saturday, after all!

 

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.

 

[Monadology]

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.

 

 

You mean just like the way sexual assault is underreported because the most common social responses include: (1) Alienating skepticism (2) Jumping to defend the assaulter (3) Blaming the victim (4) Implications that the accuser might be crazy or a liar?

Edited February 15, 2014 by Monadology

[Weltgeist]

You mean just like the way sexual assault is underreported because the most common social responses include: (1) Alienating skepticism (2) Jumping to defend the assaulter (3) Blaming the victim (4) Implications that the accuser might be crazy or a liar?

exactly: and this is why we always support the accuser and give them the benefit of the doubt and full assistance, investigative and otherwise; which does not mean automatically taking what they say to be incontrovertible proof, and which does not mean one somehow tacitly considers that they might be somehow mentally unstable or lying for whatever purpose.

 

You are more likely to get drafted into the NFL than falsely accused of rape. All the while something like 1 in 4 college women are raped or experience an attempted rape in the US. It's not difficult to see where our hearts should be.

 

And part of why sexual assault is underreported is because legitimate pressures and social conditions that produce the sort of mental conditions that prevent women from reporting are the same social conditions that are completely forgotten when a broken person's mental instability which could lead to a false accusation is treated as completely shorn of its social significance and denounced as "crazy."

 

And I would add that the notion that the defense and support of sexual assault victims, a profound expression of sympathy for an unbearable and horrifically common form of suffering, is somehow undertaken for social cred, is enormously offensive.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Weltgeist

[TheVineyard]

You mean just like the way sexual assault is underreported because the most common social responses include: (1) Alienating skepticism (2) Jumping to defend the assaulter (3) Blaming the victim (4) Implications that the accuser might be crazy or a liar?

 

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.

Edited February 16, 2014 by TheVineyard

[DHumeDominates]

It's a shame this thread was overwhelmed by a visceral debate that is the subject of another thread. Don't see the point in that.

 

I thought I'd add another recommendation for philosophe. Have you heard of MAP (Minorities and Philosophy)? Here's the website. http://www.mapforthegap.com/ There are graduate student and faculty mentors willing to discuss climate issues for women, people of color, etc. at a variety of departments. I don't think Rochester is represented. However, I bet these people could tell what to ask of people at Rochester, what is and is not relevant when it comes to determining how hospitable a particular climate is for women, for example.

 

Just a thought.

[ianfaircloud]

A follow-up to the discussions on this thread:

 

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/ludlow-sues-several-news-organizations-for-defamation-for-falsely-reporting-that-he-had-been-accused.html

 

I recommend this post, but I don't recommend having an unproductive debate about whether Ludlow is guilty! I simply think that Leiter's post is especially apropos with regard to our recent discussions.

[Table]

Statement from CU women faculty. An excerpt:

 

 

 

First, we are all distressed that the Report may damage the reputations of male colleagues who are completely innocent of sexual misconduct. It could also harm the prospects of our male graduate students currently on the market. We faculty women strongly believe that none of our currently untenured male colleagues or current male graduate students has engaged in sexual misconduct (nor, indeed, have most of our tenured colleagues). 

[Monadology]

I just thought I'd leave this here:

 

http://philosophicalspaces.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/what-can-you-do-to-help/

 

 

 

Climate issues in philosophy have been in the news recently. You might be asking: “What can I do to help?” Any movement needs people who are committed to the cause and have the capacity or resources to contribute. The more help and support behind a cause, the more can be accomplished.

Here are some things that one can do to promote the inclusion of women and minorities in philosophy:

[Aspasia100]

I'm leaving this here for Vineyard: http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/some-thoughts-on-epistemic-responsibility-2/

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Sorry for the bump, but I just read this: 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568586/Oxford-student-hanged-splitting-boyfriend.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 

 

My initial reaction to these sorts of stories regarding sexual harassment in phd programs and the like has always been this: It is just so much easier NOT to get involved with a student in an intimate way, than it is to start such a relationship. Why bother getting involved with a student? For love? Pff, love some one else. Not your students. How is it that some academic professionals cannot seem to abide by a self-imposed rule that is as simple as: 'Hey Self, don't have sex with your students. Thanks, Self. That sounds like a great idea.' 

 

How is it that the intimacy that results from a student-professor relationship is so often misinterpreted by one side or the other? Maybe I sound naive, but I simply do not understand how for some it is so difficult to NOT have a relationship with their students. I don't much care for principle-based ethics. But shit, that seems to me to be a pretty minimal moral requirement, one that all who proceed along this career path should abide by. 

[TheVineyard]

Sorry for the bump, but I just read this: 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568586/Oxford-student-hanged-splitting-boyfriend.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 

 

My initial reaction to these sorts of stories regarding sexual harassment in phd programs and the like has always been this: It is just so much easier NOT to get involved with a student in an intimate way, than it is to start such a relationship. Why bother getting involved with a student? For love? Pff, love some one else. Not your students. How is it that some academic professionals cannot seem to abide by a self-imposed rule that is as simple as: 'Hey Self, don't have sex with your students. Thanks, Self. That sounds like a great idea.' 

 

How is it that the intimacy that results from a student-professor relationship is so often misinterpreted by one side or the other? Maybe I sound naive, but I simply do not understand how for some it is so difficult to NOT have a relationship with their students. I don't much care for principle-based ethics. But shit, that seems to me to be a pretty minimal moral requirement, one that all who proceed along this career path should abide by. 

 

Why not rewrite this entire post but replace "professor" with "student" and visa versa? These students are of age and able to make their own decisions too...

[Monadology]

Why not rewrite this entire post but replace "professor" with "student" and visa versa? These students are of age and able to make their own decisions too...

 

While it is also a good point that the principle runs both ways (it's probably a bad idea for both parties), it's also true that there is a very distinct power dynamic where the professor is in the position of power. That makes it more urgent and important for the principle to be a strict one in the case of the professor.

[objectivityofcontradiction]

You're right Vineyard, and I know there was no way of avoiding my sounding like I was nurturing the students, and treating them like children. But, no, I don't think I will rewrite it and swap 'professor' for 'student.' The point I was making would apply anyways; if the student comes onto the Professor, under the principle I was advocating, they would be met with a swift rejection, end of story. If the student continues to think it is a good idea to get involved with professors, well, I don't know, report them to the administration? 

[TheVineyard]

You're right Vineyard, and I know there was no way of avoiding my sounding like I was nurturing the students, and treating them like children. But, no, I don't think I will rewrite it and swap 'professor' for 'student.' The point I was making would apply anyways; if the student comes onto the Professor, under the principle I was advocating, they would be met with a swift rejection, end of story. If the student continues to think it is a good idea to get involved with professors, well, I don't know, report them to the administration? 

 

Report them to the administration? What and put them in timeout?

I know several people who had successful teacher/student relationships. They are older folks, but they are in very healthy relationships and lived happy lives. I'm not in the business of nosing my way into consensual relationships and meddling with them, and I don't know why others do either. If they willingly want to have a relationship with each other, then that's between them.

[Establishment]

I don't know why we're talking about consensual relationships between students and professors.

 

The linked article has to do with a person stalking and harassing another person to the point of suicide.

[TheVineyard]

I don't know why we're talking about consensual relationships between students and professors.

 

The linked article has to do with a person stalking and harassing another person to the point of suicide.

 

Maybe we wanted to talk about something else. I didn't read the article, I was responding to objectivity's discussion of consensual relationships.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheVineyard