Mizzou: Tall Men Asking Out Short Women: Sexual Harassment
link
(via Instapundit)
One thing about PC/SJ nonsense: it's so patently absurd that there's nothing you can say to make the absurdity clearer. If you can't see the abject absurdity of such a thing, there's nothing I or anyone else can say that will make it any more obvious.
The problem isn't that there are a few cases in which progressive ideology goes wrong in practice; there are a few cases in which any political view will go wrong in practice. The problem is that progressive ideology starts out clearly wrong...and then predictably and reliably generates absurdities. And: absurdities that aren't mere instances of misapplication or reasonable error. Rather, they're grotesquely irrational and crazy. Stuff like this isn't a bug, it's a feature--or damn near one. It's not like the social justice crowd says: Oh, we didn't realize that our view might be used to undermine free speech, due process, and normal human relationships and interactions! Those are goals, my dudes. They've been goals for a long time.
This Missou case might be messier than it looks--but no details are going to emerge that make it reasonable to count height as a constitutive element of sexual harassment...
(via Instapundit)
One thing about PC/SJ nonsense: it's so patently absurd that there's nothing you can say to make the absurdity clearer. If you can't see the abject absurdity of such a thing, there's nothing I or anyone else can say that will make it any more obvious.
The problem isn't that there are a few cases in which progressive ideology goes wrong in practice; there are a few cases in which any political view will go wrong in practice. The problem is that progressive ideology starts out clearly wrong...and then predictably and reliably generates absurdities. And: absurdities that aren't mere instances of misapplication or reasonable error. Rather, they're grotesquely irrational and crazy. Stuff like this isn't a bug, it's a feature--or damn near one. It's not like the social justice crowd says: Oh, we didn't realize that our view might be used to undermine free speech, due process, and normal human relationships and interactions! Those are goals, my dudes. They've been goals for a long time.
This Missou case might be messier than it looks--but no details are going to emerge that make it reasonable to count height as a constitutive element of sexual harassment...
posted by Winston Smith at
9:30 AM
4 Comments:
You are too credulous on this. You cannot assume that all title IX cases are wrong--and in fact The National Review has retracted the original story. Apparently it is a straight up stalking case, but the university is being sued by the accused stalker.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/student-found-to-have-violated-title-ix-by-asking-another-student-on-a-date/
Quote:
This article has been retracted.
Editor’s Note: This article and its headline originally stated that a male student at the University of Missouri was found in violation of Title IX because he asked a female student on a date and “was perceived as having power over her.” The article accurately quoted the deposition of the Title IX case, but it left out relevant details. In fact, the male student had made repeated, unwelcome advances toward the female student and was found in violation of Title IX for stalking her. He is suing the university and alleging that its Title IX office engaged in arbitrary enforcement and racial discrimination, but his lawsuit does not contest the fact pattern left out of this article. We are retracting the article and we regret the error.
I was actually going to make a point that the headline has to be subtly, but meaningfully wrong (and I really hate the SJW led sex police), but then I reread the article and I think it's actually accurate. From what I can tell, asking someone out on a date doesn't constitute sexual harassment under their policies normally, but they do have a policy against people in "power or authority" dating those below them. They argued that the person's height/size constituted power, so if it holds, it would imply no large guy could date at Mizzou because they would all follow under the rule. Which is what the headline basically states.
You would think something like that would be sensationalized but damn it isn't.
Also, another thing that was only glanced over was the guy was black and she was white. I'd be stunned if that didn't play a role here.
BTW: This article suggests that some of the anti-title IX is slanted a bit too far. The original article is pretty bad, as it linked to the case file which actually described stalking. Really terrible case of cherry picking that could have been caught prepublication, though it is certainly proper of NR staff to retract it.
Yeah, I did--FWIW--mention that the case could be messier than it was represented as being.
But does the stalking really matter? I mean, did they or did they not claim that x being larger than y is grounds for a claim of sexual harassment if x asks y out?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home