| Blog and Media Roundup - Thursday, December 31, 2015; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 31 2015, 05:03 AM (96 Views) | |
| abb | Dec 31 2015, 05:03 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.cotwa.info/2015/12/the-curious-conviction-of-air-force.html Wednesday, December 30, 2015 The Curious Conviction of Air Force Major Clarence Anderson Here is an article about a conviction that merits a closer look at how our military justice is treating sexual assault. Using the most recent AF Times article and this article regarding the conviction, a reader who is familiar with military justice can discern that a woman who lived with Maj. Anderson accused him of abuse both of a physical and sexual nature, kidnapping, and threats of grievous bodily harm occurring across three states from 2009 through 2013. The Government called at least one witness who testified for the complaining witness. At his trial, he chose to be tried by military judge alone and not to have a panel of officers determine his guilt and sentence, if convicted. The military judge convicted Anderson of six of the charged offenses and acquitted him of three offenses. All of the charges involve one woman, so there might have been issued regarding her credibility or issues the way the Government drafted those charges for which he was acquitted. On December 14, 2015, the court-martial convened again to hear a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that a witness who testified for the complaining witness had been paid $10,000.00. The judge said that if the witness had been paid, then it "probably would not produce a substantially more favorable result,” had the evidence been presented at trial. Having practiced military law for more than a decade and seeing the changes made to the UCMJ, I have serious doubts about this conviction. Maybe there is very strong evidence of this Officer's guilt that has not been reported. But, there is an equally strong possibility that other evidence of innocence has not been reported, either. From what has been reported, I find it difficult to believe that a reasonable factfinder would not have a reasonable doubt as to Maj. Anderson's guilt. Reading between the lines and using my experience with Servicemembers who have been wrongly accused, I have many questions. Did these allegations manifest during a divorce or break up? Was evidence presented that the complaining witness has a borderline personality disorder? Has the complaining witness been married before? Has the complaining witness falsely accused anyone else of a crime? Did the Accused take the stand to testify where he would have been subjected to cross examination? Were these charges based solely on witness testimony, or was there evidence to corroborate the complaining witness's story such as pictures, audio, fresh medical evidence, or written evidence from the Accused? Considering that Ft. Leavenworth has a policy against inmates speaking to the media, I really begin to wonder what they do not want the public to hear about the case from this man who could be wrongfully convicted. Posted by barney greenwald at 10:35 AM |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 31 2015, 05:10 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/bill_clinton_s_sexual_past_can_still_hurt_hillary.html Why Bill’s Past Could Still Hurt Hillary The right hopes to turn the feminist consensus on rape against the Clintons. By Michelle Goldberg Donald Trump has all but promised us that in 2016 we will revisit the peregrinations of Bill Clinton’s penis. “You look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or many of them,” he said Tuesday on NBC’s Today show. “That certainly will be fair game. Certainly if they play the woman’s card with respect to me, that will be fair game.” Like that, thanks to Trump’s near-supernatural command of the news cycle, Bill’s sexual history returned to the headlines. With Bill about to head out on the campaign trail—and with Hillary putting gender issues at the center of her bid for the presidency—it’s likely to stay there for a while. Michelle Goldberg is a columnist for Slate and the author, most recently, of The Goddess Pose: The Audacious Life of Indra Devi, the Woman Who Helped Bring Yoga to the West. Among Democrats, the conventional wisdom is that this can only help Hillary. Bill Clinton remains incredibly popular. People historically rally around Hillary when she seems like a victim—her approval ratings surged during the Lewinsky scandal. Besides, the oft-married Trump can’t credibly attack anyone for infidelity, especially given his own past defenses of Bill, whose only sin, in Trump’s estimation, was not cheating with hotter women. As Josh Marshall writes, “in a general election, with an electorate not driven by the things that drive Trump supporters, having a thrice married, philandering blowhard like Trump trying to beat up on a woman over her husband's philandering, about which she is if anything the victim rather than the perpetrator, is almost comically self-destructive on Trump’s part.” Right now, though, we’re pretty far from a general election. And I’m not so sanguine that this can’t hurt Hillary, if only by undermining Bill’s effectiveness as a campaigner and complicating Hillary’s feminist message. That’s because, for the right, the Clinton sex scandals aren’t about infidelity. They’re about sexual harassment and assault. Conservatives are itching to turn the new feminist consensus on sexual violence against the woman who wants to be the first feminist president. As a New Hampshire voter asked Hillary Clinton earlier this month, “You say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?” Clinton’s somewhat awkward response: “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first, until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” It’s not easy to square the arguments against believing Broaddrick with the dominant progressive consensus on trusting victims. Right-wing journalists and operatives have been laying the groundwork for an attack on Bill Clinton’s sexual history for months. In October, former Trump adviser Roger Stone published The Clintons’ War on Women, with a forward by Kathleen Willey, the former White House volunteer who claims that Bill groped her. Willey—who, according to the independent counsel report on Whitewater, gave false information both in a legal deposition and to the FBI—has launched a website seeking other women willing to publicly accuse Clinton of sexual impropriety. In November, right-wing radio host Aaron Klein landed an interview with the usually press-shy Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978, when he was Arkansas attorney general. Speaking to Klein, Broaddrick railed against Hillary’s attempt to position herself as a champion of women. The cases of Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick have been very thoroughly investigated and endlessly chewed over. No evidence against Bill Clinton was ever found, though he did settle Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit for $850,000. But our rules for talking about sexual assault have changed since the 1990s, when these women were last in the news. Today, feminists have repeatedly and convincingly made the case that when women say they’ve been sexually assaulted, we should assume they’re telling the truth. Particularly when it comes to Broaddrick, it’s not easy to square the arguments against believing her with the dominant progressive consensus on trusting victims. This is a tension that people on the right are eager to exploit. Let’s recap. In 1999, Broaddrick publicly claimed that Bill Clinton had raped her in a hotel room 21 years earlier. She reportedly told a few people about the alleged assault at the time, and right-wing operatives shopped the story during Clinton’s first presidential campaign. Broaddrick refused to talk, however, and she later denied the rape in an affidavit in the Paula Jones case. It was only when she was interviewed by the FBI in the course of Kenneth Starr’s investigation that she changed her story and said the rape had in fact happened. (In the New York Times, she explained the about-face by saying she hadn’t wanted to go public but felt she couldn’t lie to federal investigators.) Shortly afterward, frustrated with rumors that had begun to circulate about her, she gave several high-profile interviews. We will probably never know the truth of what happened between Broaddrick and Clinton. But today, few feminists would find her shifting story disqualifying. Consider, also, another piece of evidence that was marshaled against Broaddrick in the 1990s: Three weeks after the alleged assault, she attended a fundraiser for Clinton. Speaking to Klein, she says she was traumatized and blamed herself for what happened. “I felt responsible. I don’t know if you know the mentality of women and men at that time. But me letting him come to my room? I accepted full blame.” In any other context, most feminists today would find this credible. After all, many were outraged when rape skeptics tried to discredit Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz because she’d sent friendly Facebook messages to her alleged rapist after the alleged rape. To be clear: I don’t think for a moment that the people who hope to use Broaddrick against Hillary care about victim blaming. And it would be a profound sexist irony if these accusations, having failed to derail Bill Clinton’s political career, came back to haunt his wife. Nevertheless, it’s easy to see why many on the right are giddy at the prospect of a new national conversation about Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, and thrilled that Trump is giving them one. As Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro told the Washington Post, “The irony of the situation is that the old Clintonian defense, ‘everybody lies about sex,’ doesn't fly in a world in which Hillary has declared that nobody lies about sexual assault.” Glenn Kessler, who writes the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, published a piece on Wednesday titled, “A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing.” It is divided into “Consensual affairs” and “Allegations of an unwanted sexual encounter.” Kessler’s bottom line: “Trump’s claim is a bit too vague for a fact check. In any case, we imagine readers will have widely divergent reactions to this list of admitted affairs and unproven allegations of unwanted sexual encounters. But at least you now know the specific cases that Trump is referencing.” Trump likely knew what he was doing in getting Kessler to remind us. [/i] Edited by abb, Dec 31 2015, 05:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 31 2015, 05:16 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2015/12/reforming-the-sexual-assault-trial-system/ Reforming the Sexual Assault Trial System By Alexandra DoyleDecember 30, 2015 On a tense Friday last August, two teenagers shed tears in a Concord, New Hampshire courthouse. One was Owen Labrie, a 19-year-old graduate of St. Paul’s School. He had just escaped conviction under a felony rape charge. The second was his accuser, a girl of only 15. The jury decided that her attorneys had not proven that she was sexually assaulted beyond a reasonable doubt. Labrie walked away with penalties addressing the minor status of the accuser and none addressing nonconsensual sexual activity. Labrie was considered innocent until proven guilty. This notion is at the core of the American justice system and for good reason. Our society finds a wrongful conviction so detestable that the improper freeing of criminals is preferable. Still, it is important to pay close attention to crimes like sexual assaults that are left largely unprosecutable in this system. With no easy solution to this problem, emphasis must be placed on survivor support mechanisms that don’t remove the rights of the accused. It can be incredibly difficult to be sure an event happened when one did not actually witness it. So, juries must rely on physical evidence — security camera footage, DNA testing, and fingerprint analyses — as well as continuities in the stories of multiple witnesses. But sexual assault and abuse is highly unlikely to occur in public, so witnesses will not exist. In the case of Owen Labrie, the alleged rape occurred on the roof of a campus building, outside the view of others. This leaves survivors with very little possibility of evidentiary proof. “Rape kits,” or sexual assault forensic exams, are one tool to salvage some evidentiary poof for victims. The kits are used to collect evidence of a perpetrator’s DNA on a survivor’s body, clothes, or other belongings. They can be performed by many healthcare professionals. Unfortunately, due to daily activities like bathing, washing clothing, and using the restroom, this evidence is only viable for an average of 72 hours. This leaves a survivor who may be traumatized or confused and may not have considered a criminal trial yet only three days to essentially reserve his or her right to prove that sexual contact occurred. One study showed that cases were significantly more likely to progress to a possible conviction when a rape kit was used. Assuming that a survivor does have a sexual assault forensic exam taken, there is still no guarantee that it will be tested. A recent report found that over 70,000 rape kits have gone untested in the United States, becoming part of what is being referred to as the “backlog.” Because testing is not mandated by law, it is left to the sole discretion of the police force. Unfortunately, these tests are expensive ranging from $1,000 to $1,500 on average. For police departments with limited resources, these costly tests are often not a priority, as many cases never go to trial. This is a problem not only for survivors but also for the accused. While DNA evidence may help a survivor through the conviction of her rapist, it can also exonerate the wrongly accused in cases of assaults by strangers. The Innocence Project, a litigation group that works to exonerate the innocent with DNA evidence, has documented 334 cases of DNA leading to the release of a person convicted of a sex crime from prison. Since the discovery of a backlog, many cities have worked to eliminate it. Notably, Houston has analyzed 6,600 of its own backlogged kits, which have led to 850 DNA matches, 29 prosecutions, and six convictions. As shown by these statistics, physical evidence is oftentimes not enough for a conviction. This is because rape kits can only conclude that sexual activity occurred, not that it was necessarily assault – unless there are clear signs of battery. A conviction of sexual assault requires a prosecutor to prove not only that the sexual activity occurred but also that it was unwanted. For example, Labrie’s accuser had a physical examination done the day after the event revealing the boy’s DNA on her underwear and abrasions consistent with penetration. Clearly, this evidence did not lead to a rape conviction. Proof that such activity was unwanted cannot be found in DNA, but must factor in mindset, body movement, and dialogue, all of which can only be testified to by the accuser and the accused. Looking at the bleak prognosis for a sexual assault survivor lacking evidence, it is unsurprising that 68 percent of survivors never report the incident to the police. Further complicating the issue are relationships between survivors and the accused. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of college-aged survivors knew their rapist personally. In these cases, a rape kit might have less weight, as the sexual activity may be seen as consensual by a jury. This is supported by Jon R. Zug, a domestic violence attorney of Charlottesville, Virginia, who admits, “I’ve never won an acquaintance rape jury trial.” In light of this anecdote, the acquittal of Owen Labrie is unsurprising, as the two teens did know each other before the date in question. Jury bias can also influence the outcome of these already complex cases. Zug noted that older women tended to side with the accused. It seems these adults tend to scrutinize young women harshly, paying particular attention to alcohol consumption. Still, there is no provision in US law that excuses rapists when a victim is intoxicated. It is unsurprising that 98 percent of accused rapists will never see a jail cell. Of course, this doesn’t mean that 98 percent of accusers are lying, or that those 98 percent were acquitted unfairly. But there seems to be something questionable with so many of these claims being dismissed as lies, indicating a much more problematic issue with how the justice system deals with such cases. Still, Owen Labrie’s sentencing hints at a desire of the jury to punish the accused despite the lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While most charges he faces, due to the age of his accuser, are misdemeanors, the jury did charge him with one felony. This charge was using a computer to lure a minor, since plans between the two were made using Facebook. His attorney pointed out the charge’s deviation from its clear intention: to prevent adults from luring children by disguising their identity over the internet. The jury used a law atypically in a manner similar to jury nullification – it is a choice made based more on morality than strict legality. Notably, the jury included nine men and only three women, unsurprising in light of Zug’s experience with jurors. The jury’s decision points to frustration with the criminal justice system as it stands, as they gave Labrie the only punishment possible without more imperial evidence, regardless of if it truly fit the case. So what can a nation do with crimes where there simply is no evidence? Lowering the burden of proof in such delicate cases could be disastrous. While many college campuses use a lower standard of preponderance of the evidence — it’s more likely than not that the sexual assault occurred — they are private institutions that can only deprive the accused the privilege of a private education, not the right to liberty that this nation holds dear. Thus, there are only two things that really can be done. The first is to encourage the use and testing of rape kits. The more women that are aware of the service, the more likely they will be to seek it if necessary. And recent events in multiple cities have shown that the clearing of backlogs of untested kits can lead to the conviction of multiple rapists. Second, support must be given to accusers without taking away the rights of the accused. Though a report is not enough to treat someone like a rapist, it is enough to treat someone like a rape survivor. Groups like the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network receive federal funds to disseminate information on support services for survivors. This non-profit work may be the best a country can do while sexual assault remains such a pervasive problem in our society, keeping the interests of all parties in mind. It is important that professionals conducting these rape-kit tests give survivors information on what their options are and what support services are available in their community (be that therapy, support groups, or legal services). Current national standards for training of Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examiners briefly mention that a patient’s options should be explained to them, but don’t require that specific support services be offered. Still, the trial system itself can heavily deter survivors from reporting. Labrie’s accuser noted feeling traumatized by the trial, especially the harsh cross-examination by Labrie’s attorney. She said she now understood why so few victims come forward. The Sixth Amendment right to face your accuser can force survivors to relive traumatic experiences as their assailant sits in the same room. Cross examinations can be incredibly emotionally trying, especially when they directly attack character. When Labrie’s accuser stated that she tries not to lie often, Labrie’s attorney retorted, “I guess you’re unsuccessful.” The girl broke down in tears multiple times. In order to encourage the report of such serious crimes, the court system could benefit from measures that have been taken by universities to ensure the two parties never have to be in the same room, using telephones if necessary. Of course, cross examinations will still be necessary, but judges can work to limit attorneys strictly to relevant, non-argumentative lines of questioning. In a system that presents severe difficulties to everyone involved, careful support for all parties while minding due-process is the best remedy available. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 31 2015, 07:09 AM Post #4 |
|
What happened to Perry Mason breaking down a witness on the stand? Oh, sorry; that can't be allowed in the New America... |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 31 2015, 01:44 PM Post #5 |
|
Durham homicides rise; number of people shot doubled 42 homicides reported this year in the Bull City, the most since tracking began in 1980 Number of people shot in Durham has more than doubled, from 95 in 2014 to 198 in 2015 Leaders, community organizations call for more public involvement, community policing By Virginia Bridges vbridges@newsobserver.com DURHAM Forty-two people have died at the hands of others in Durham in 2015 as of Wednesday, almost double the number killed last year and the most in any one year since the city began counting homicides in 1980. This year is also notable because 198 people in Durham have been shot or suffered shooting-related injuries in 2015, more than double the 95 shooting victims in 2014. Guns were the weapons used in nearly 70 percent of the city’s homicides this year. In comparison, Raleigh has had 17 homicides this year, the same number as in 2014. Durham has been startled by the violence this year, which may be a record year for homicides, especially since killings fell in 2014 to 22, from 30 in 2013. Durham’s second-highest homicide total was 41 in 1996, according to the Durham Police Department. This year’s steep rise from the prior year is “very concerning,” City Manager Tom Bonfield said. The challenge, Bonfield and outgoing police Chief Jose Lopez said, is that the 42 homicides are killings that occurred under a variety of circumstances. Ten of the homicides were described as domestic cases in which the victims and perpetrators were related, including four in which the victims were 3 years old or younger, according to Durham police. In four cases, the homicides were ruled justifiable self-defense. One victim died this year from complications of a 2011 gunshot wound, and another death was an officer-involved shooting. Lopez said earlier this year that at least six homicides were gang-related. Bonfield said there were actually more gang-related homicides in 2014. The police department has 16 open cases in which no arrests have been made, according to spokesman Wil Glenn. Lopez said multiple factors have contributed to the increase in violent crime across the United States, including what he claimed is a backlash against law enforcement that he said has emboldened criminals and kept the public from sharing information with police. “I think that they feel they can pretty much do what they want and not really have to worry about consequences,” Lopez said. Overall, reported violent crime in Durham increased in the first nine months of 2015 by 16 percent, compared with the same period last year. To address that and concerns about police-community relations, the city is exploring reallocating Police Department resources and learning from other cities that have faced similar issues. In addition, Bonfield forced Lopez to retire by the end of 2015; the city is searching for a new chief. ‘Like live wires’ “It is only going to get worse,” said Rodney Williams, co-founder of Walk for Life, an advocacy group that tries to get residents of high-crime neighborhoods engaged in crime-fighting efforts. Williams, who also tries to help gang members find alternatives to gang life, said a number of factors have contributed to the increase in violent crime. In the last few months, a number of high-ranking gang members have been arrested, he said. “Right now, there is no structure in the Bloods and the Crips,” Williams said. “So these young men are like live wires. Nobody has any control.” Lopez said the Police Department has been looking at that issue. Williams also said people with felony records need places where they can learn job skills that would encourage potential employers to give them a second chance. Durham’s churches need to focus on helping these challenged communities, Williams said, and the city needs to invest in recreational opportunities. In addition, police substations need to return to troubled public housing complexes, Williams said. Police officers need to get out of their cars and build relationships, he said. An epidemic Marcia Owen, director of the Religious Coalition for a Nonviolent Durham, described the violence in Durham and in other communities as a “public health epidemic.” The community, she said, needs to look beyond the numbers and explore who the victims are, whether crimes are being solved, how long the sentences are for and whether those arrested are repeat offenders. “I am outraged, and I hope others are, too, at the numbers of homicides,” said Clarence Birkhead, a former Hillsborough and Duke University police chief. Birkhead is currently chairman of the the public safety committee for the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. Birkhead called for more community policing and residents getting more involved with the police, in addition to long-term strategies that center on education and more youth programming. The Durham Committee has held one forum and plans to hold another to reach out to those most affected by violence. “Someone knows why and who is committing the crime,” he said. “So we need to start there and get them to talk about these individuals.” Staff writer Thomasi McDonald contributed to this report. Virginia Bridges: 919-829-8924, @virginiabridges Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article52380615.html#storylink=cpy |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 31 2015, 02:04 PM Post #6 |
|
So the solution is to NOT arrest gang leaders? Encourage employers to hire felons? Add midnight basketball? And have the police build "relationships"? (How about, maybe, fixing the Black family?) |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 31 2015, 07:07 PM Post #7 |
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2015-a-year-of-campus-hysteria/article/2579184 2015: A year of campus hysteria By Ashe Schow • 12/31/15 10:00 AM This year may have brought about peak campus hysteria across the country. Microaggressions, safe spaces, sex assault accusations and protests made headlines around the world, often for their abject absurdity. I've only been covering these issues since the summer of 2014, but this year I found it nearly impossible to write about anything else, since there was just so much happening on the nation's colleges. The ridiculousness started in February when Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis penned an article about "sexual paranoia" at colleges and universities. She bemoaned the campus climate of disregarding due process in favor of political correctness and the need to believe all accusers, regardless of the facts and evidence. More from the Washington Examiner 2015's most powerful images through the eyes of a White House photographers By Sean Langille • 12/31/15 6:05 PM Kipnis was then accused by at least two students for alleged "retaliation." The students claimed her article created a "chilling effect" on campus and discouraged accusers from coming forward. Kipnis was accused of violating Title IX — the federal statute that bans sex discrimination and is being used to force colleges to adjudicate felonies. She was not accused of sexual assault, but for somehow violating the law because a few students didn't like her article. Kipnis was eventually — and thankfully — cleared of the violation, but the message was clear: Dare to speak against the prevailing narrative and suffer painful consequences. Kipnis was tied up in the same administrative hearing process that many young men (and a few young women) find themselves in when accused of sexual assault. Due process is seen as a hindrance to "justice" and discarded. But just as Kipnis was vindicated by her employer, many of the male students accused of sexual assault saw their lawsuits dismissed by judges deferring to college procedures. At Vassar College, a young man who grew up in Northeastern China was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student more than a year earlier. Despite Facebook messages showing the accuser apologized to the young man for not treating him "very well," Vassar expelled the student. A judge (who was recommended for the position by anti-rape activist Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) dismissed his lawsuit on the grounds that Title IX does not require due process and therefore the student wasn't entitled to any. The judge would be backed up by a Michigan Tech administrator who said that Title IX supersedes the U.S. Constitution. At Columbia University, a judge nominated to the bench by President Obama (who has also sounded the drum on sexual assault paranoia) dismissed a lawsuit from another accused student. That student was accused five months after the encounter, in which the accuser invited him back to her bathroom suite and even left the room to obtain a condom. But despite some setbacks, students accused of sexual assault made some gains in 2015. Editorial boards across the country — including the L.A. Times and the New York Daily News – questioned the ability of colleges to handle sexual assault accusations. A few colleges settled with suing students over due process violations, including Middlebury College and the University of Colorado Boulder. Before the settlement, a judge had halted the expulsion of the Middlebury student. Another judge halted the expulsion of a student who could have been sent to war-torn Syria if the legal system had not intervened, suggesting that the college was more concerned with campus activism than with the lives of its students. But perhaps the biggest gains for college students came from judges in California and Tennessee. In California, Judge Joel Pressman deemed a University of California-San Diego campus hearing "unfair," and ruled the school had violated a student's due process rights. And in Tennessee, Judge Carl McCoy ruled that the University of Tennessee improperly shifted the burden of proof from the accuser onto the accused, an impossible task. In what appears to be a mirror of the campus sexual assault protests and activism of years ago — which led to the current witch-hunt mentality and evisceration of due process rights — the fall brought forth a new outrage: racism. Charges were lodged against campus administrators who did not sufficiently conform to students' views, as evidenced by the outrage surrounding a Yale administrator who dared to suggest students use reasonable judgment when it comes to Halloween costumes. You see, college students today see "cultural appropriation" and racism in everything, including Halloween costumes and yoga. Most of the alleged incidents of racism included vague, unverifiable claims told by screaming and teary-eyed students — mostly at Ivy League universities. Many of the claims included "microaggressions," words and phrases that are not intended to be offensive, but which are taken as such by overly sensitive students. At some schools, administrators resigned over the protests, apologizing for not doing enough to create "safe spaces" for students. The safe space protests mirrored the sexual assault protests in that the protesters demanded to be believed and for the school to acquiesce without even a shred of evidence. But it appears these protesters — aptly called "crybullies" by The Wall Street Journal — will not get their way in the long run. Students have pushed back against the protesters, arguing for sanity to return. A former dean at Syracuse University even suggested the microaggressions may become a thing of the past, with schools reinforcing the First Amendment instead of capitulating to young campus totalitarians. The special snowflakes who have elevated every minor or perceived slight to the level of physical violence or historical oppression continue to gain attention in the media. But their antics have become so outrageous that they have brought earned ridicule and scorn. Will 2016 see a rise in absurdity? Probably, since those students will continue to get the attention, but I predict a stronger backlash against the students who try to make themselves victims in order to get that attention. At least I hope there will be more pushback. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:28 AM Jul 11