That’s tainted Special Counsel Jack Smith wearing an anti-Trump shirt last week.
Nothing says independent, non partisan, fair, objective and unbiased like appearing in public billboarding a message attacking the official you were supposed to investigate.
At least he’s a defiant, transparent unethical prosecutor.
What an asshole.
Over the weekend and already this morning, this nice, peaceful ethics blog was the victim of harassment and attack from an embittered banned commenter. It’s far from the first time this has happened since 2009, when EA first spread its wings, but this one was unique in its persistence and idiocy. What kind of person spends his or her valuable time writing long, mostly coherent screeds to post where 1) they aren’t welcome and 2) where they will be dispatched to Spam Hell the second the proprietor, me, sees them? You can answer that question as well as I can, but the inescapable conclusion is that such conduct validates my judgment in banning them in the first place. Ethical people don’t act like that. Rational people don’t act like that. Ethics Alarms is for ethical, rational, and also smart people. For “Cassandra’s AI Agent,” one out of three isn’t good enough, and I’m starting to have doubts about the “smart” part.
[Added: One of the ways this conduct is indefensibly unethical is that all the spammed comments from CAA clogged my spam folder and caused me to miss James Flood’s constructive comment last night on this post. I just got it up.]
Thanks to Steve Witherspoon, I finally learned how WordPress lets a blogger block a commenter. It would have been nice if WordPress itself made this information conveniently available or obvious: it’s buried several layers deep on my “Dashboard.” Oh, I’m sure there was a video with the information made available to me at some point many years ago. Silly me—I assumed that visitors to an ethics blog would respect the host’s rules, orders and requests, including the order to stay out of the comment threads. Most have, in fact, usually after an angry email or a single last word. Not “Cassandra,” however, and not the previous comment-bombing champ,”A Friend.”
The device of pretending to be a new commenter using a new email address is particularly obnoxious. “Cassandra’s AI Agent” is also in violation of EA rules by not sending me the real name behind the screen name. Come to think of it, so are many of you regular commenters out there: shame on you, and shame on me, for I have been lax in enforcing this requirement. If I had, we wouldn’t be debating whether CAA is Alizia Tyler or not. (I still vote “no.”)
But before we wave goodby to this pompous asshole, let me clarify, for the record, the delusions that seemingly led to the rage-fest. Many of them appear somewhere in the Comment Policies linked on the Home Page, and every aspiring commenter is obligated to read them. Nevertheless, I’ll risk being redundant.
The hits just keep on coming for the “Women are the victims of the patriarchy so let’s go socialist!” crowd. First we had the mother who murdered her three children (if women could just murder them before they were born, this would never happen!). That was a really good one, but its path to intersectionalism was complicated when the hold-out juror turned out to be black. Then, as usual, the Axis decided to take revenge by doxxing him, the social media mob decided to mug him, and the Axis media started lying.
Never mind! To the rescue came Tennessee, which botched the lethal injection that was supposed to kill a woman who had been on Death Row for decades. Other convicted murderers have had their lethal injections fail, but not women, and, most important of all, not before mid-terms. Christa Pike has been another toxic empathy bonanza for progressives, but just as it was really getting rolling, another she said-they said campus rape scandal burst into the headlines. “Jane Doe” is a much more appealing alleged victim to cheer despite the strong likelihood that she is setting out to (further) wreck the lives of young men whose primary offense may have been that they accepted her drunken and drugged offer of “free pussy.” Interestingly, every lawyer I’ve asked so far has agreed with me that it’s likely that the whole ethics train wreck was launched by an enterprising attorney who told “Jane,” “You know, if you sue, Cornell will probably just settle to avoid the bad publicity. You’ll get millions and I’ll get a third! What’s not to like? As for those guys you’ll have to accuse, fuck ’em. Oh, right! You already did!”
[Added: The comments to this post indicate that many don’t know what the exact Naked Teacher Principle is. My fault: I usually re-state it in the posts, and did not this time. The Principle states that a secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the teacher naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is dismissed by the school as a result. It does not hold, and has never held, that such teachers must be dismissed or should be dismissed in all cases.]
That’s St. Louis substitute teacher Sheena Sittner above—trust me on this. Like some other teachers—and bet there are a lot more potential firees out there—she lost her job over having an OnlyFans account. It wasn’t the school that fired her but the agency that delivers substitute teachers that suspended her pending termination and that she must “refrain from contacting any school or districts.”
The enterprising educator follows July’s Naked Teacher Principle (NTP) star, Maris Nichols, 25, the married Georgia high school teacher who in addition to having sex with students is a provocative OnlyFans performer. Maris was being blackmailed by some of her students who discovered the OnlyFans channel she owns, operates, and uses to display her excellent Linda Lovelace impression, among, uh, other things.
It’s a theoretical argument that Nichols’ example, which provides one reason OnlyFans teachers have no defense to offer school boards once they are outed, doesn’t apply to a substitute teacher. Who would extort a substitute teacher for grades, when they don’t usually give out grades? Never mind, though: there are plenty of other reasons a school (and parents) might not want to have an amateur porn star guiding young impressionable minds. Do I have to go through them again? Here’s an idea: why don’t you review the EA archives on the subject? It will be entertaining, and I don’t have to write the same things I have posted dozens of times over many years.
Sheena does have a distinction that puts her in a sub-category: she’s a dim-witted rationalizing Naked Teacher. She’s been broadcasting X-rated content on OnlyFans along with her substitute teaching for the past two years, and says she knew it would probably be discovered eventually. “If teachers were paid better, women wouldn’t have to resort to online content creation,” Sittner said. “Sex sells.” Yeah, so do kidneys, crack and child trafficking. And, you know, women don’t have to resort to selling their body and dignity for the enjoyment of pervs: there are many other options. Moreover,the reasons one chooses to engage in a side-gig that is incompatible with holding a parent’s trust as a role model and a conveyor of societal values still don’t justify the conduct if it affects others and is inappropriate.
Maybe this is why she’s just a substitute teacher.
I paused Part I when I hit item #6 and the post began reaching Alizia Tyler-level length. Since then, about 24 hours ago, there have been new revelations, commentary and developments. Picking up where I left off…
7. The New York Times tracked down the detailed filings in the private Title IX proceedings Cornell undertook, including hundreds of pages of emails, text messages, photographs and interviews with “Jane Doe,” her friends and the alleged rapists. This section from the Times report is, I think, definitive (the Times is playing it straight for a change):
At 3:05 a.m. on Oct. 20, 2024, one of Jane Doe’s roommates sent her a text.
“Are you coming home tonight?” she asked.
Four minutes later, Jane Doe texted back that she didn’t know.
The roommate went to sleep, she would tell investigators. When she woke up at 11 a.m., she uploaded a photo of her empty room to Snapchat. “Only I made it back home,” she wrote on the post.
Around 11:15 a.m., she said, Jane Doe arrived home, still in her “big boots and small dress” from the night before, according to the roommate. She had consumed ketamine and had sex with multiple men, she told her two roommates. One roommate told investigators that Jane Doe did not use the word “rape” or “assault” yet.
It seemed like she was “in shock,” her other roommate later told investigators, “not really understanding the gravity of what she was saying.”
The next day, on Oct. 21, Jane Doe went to her “big sister” — a woman designated as a mentor — at Cornell’s Tri Delta sorority and told her there were rumors circulating that she was a “slut.” The big sister, a junior at Cornell, told investigators that Jane Doe added with a laugh that “unfortunately they are true.”
To me, this means that the accuser was not raped and didn’t regard herself as being raped. The editorial comments of her friends indicate biased allies doing their best to frame the event in the manner most favorable to someone they care about. I know, I know: victims of sexual assault blame themselves, are awash in shame, and often take time to “process” what occurred. Or they are persuaded by others to reexamine what happened in a way that avoids accountability, provides a path to financial damages, and that victimizes others. Whichever went on here, I don’t see how a criminal prosecution and conviction is possible unless politics tramples the law—which, as we all know, it often does.
8. The student received a text message from Jonathan Newell, one of the men she would go on to accuse of sexual assault. Note that his name is out there but hers is being withheld by the news media, despite the fact that both, or neither, may be victims. “I just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night,” Newell wrote. He said that he and Matthew Ingalls, another student she accused of sexual assault, both “felt terrible” that they were too stoned and drunk to “shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand.”
“Jane Doe” replied to him, “At the end of the day none of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly I really liked being with you and Matt.” Not illegal means, “I wasn’t raped, but you know that.”
9. Here, thanks to reader James Flood, who flagged it in the comments to Part I, is feminist Camille Paglia on the basic principles of feminist hypocrisy the incident and one like it highlight…
10. Among the messages in the infamous SnapChat exchange among members of the fraternity during the orgy or what ever you want to call it was an alert that there was “free pussy” upstairs. Victory Girls opines in part,
“The female student’s original claims were that sex and drug use at the Chi Phi fraternity house just off of Cornell’s campus was consensual, but now, the story, perceived to be pushed under the table for two years, has risen back to the surface. And now, Jane Doe is telling a different story…his kind of stuff happens every weekend on any given university campus-this is one time that it is actually hitting the news…This case is not just a case of them versus her. This case, and the behavior that surrounds it, are a cry for help…
“Some young people go to college with a specific career goal in mind. Some young people come to a university to explore their identities, to embark upon new horizons and, yes, to belong. …Fraternities and sororities sell the price tag of lifelong friends, leadership opportunities and exclusive networks and experiences on their websites and social media of carefully-curated videos and photos. The guys want the hot girls at the parties and the girls want to go to the parties at the “husband house.”
… Fraternities use slogans like, “building better men”, “friendship, justice and learning”, “transforming lives”, “courage to be more”, to name a few of their catchy and contrived mottos. Sororities talk of philanthropy, “bravery”, “togetherness”, “family”, “values” and “inspiring positive change”…Nothing says “bonding” and “gentlemen” like putting “free pussy” in a group chat. On the flip side of this coin, the young woman who was allegedly raped spent some time drinking at a sorority house on campus before going to the Chi Phi house to meet a guy she was chatting with for an alleged hook-up. How she ended up upstairs with no girlfriends who value “togetherness” is also a big, glaring question. So much for the “values” of the sisterhood.
…Special prosecution or not, this case, and all of the young people involved, is a tragic depiction of a toxic campus community….they all need to take a good, hard look. Universities’ blanket statements that “they take sexual violence seriously” and their willful ignorance of what happens on off-campus houses that still bring money into the University is not enough. Organizations that claim to raise “gentlemen and leaders” and “brave women” do not lend themselves to this type of behavior. A “gentleman” in a formal suit one evening who later participates in a chat (or who is an “innocent” bystander in said chat) advertising “free pussy upstairs” is not a “productive member of society.”…A girl that offers to sniff ketamine off a guy’s junk and have a threesome is a woman with severe insecurities who needs REAL friends who will stop her from the self-destructive behavior that she may later regret and encourage her to have dignity and respect herself. This is not a Cornell problem. Or a college problem. Or a left versus right problem. Or even a legal problem. This is a bigger MORAL problem. This is a right from wrong problem…
I have stated many times here that I believe fraternities are disasters-in-waiting, despite anecdotal evidence that they and sororities have social and socializing value. My college killed its fraternities in the 19th Century. “Morality” is not the issue here, and citing it just fogs the conversation. People are being hurt by this kind of conduct. Ethical people don’t engage in conduct that hurts people. For “Jane Doe” to seek to harm (or benefit from while harming) those who were willing participants in an activity she consented to and encouraged or appeared to consent to and encourage is unethical.
11. The New York Times reports that two of the fraternity members accused by “Jane” were expelled. Another who had already graduated is barred from campus. Two more were suspended. The remaining two men, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar, were ordered not to contact Jane Doe, to study sexual harassment, social media use and bystander intervention, and to write “reflection papers.” Their crime was being part of a group of men who entered the room after reading the Snapchat “free pussy” message. A lawsuit filed by Kretzschmar against Cornell shows that he was not found responsible for sexual assault. Cornell ruled that he had committed a lesser offense of “attempted sexual exploitation.”
Come on.
Watch “Animal House,” for heaven’s sake.
A lawyer for Kretzschmar said in a statement that the discipline his client received showed that he was “never accused of, nor found responsible for, rape. He was not even present during any sexual activity.”
“Jane Doe” has received no academic discipline at all. Ever since the Obama era’s despicable (but typical for that administration) “Dear Colleague” letter, universities have operated from a position of presumed guilt for male students accused of sexual assault and presumed victim status for their accusers. You know. Justice. “Equity.”
There is a lot more, but that’s enough for now.
What would have been a go-ahead 2-run homer by the San Diego Padres’ Ty France in the top of the 9th inning in last night’s Padres-Brewers NLDS series opener was foiled by a cable in the retractable roof stadium at America Field Park. The huge fly ball (49 degree launch angle, the steepest ever recorded there) on the way over the fence in fair territory struck a cable and fell straight down into the waiting outfielder’s glove. By the ground rules in force, the ball was in play and it was an out. One batter later, the Brewers had won 3-2.
Batted balls used to hit parts of the roof a lot in the Ray’s awful park in St. Petersburg before its roof was repaired, but that’s because the beams, cables, catwalks and rails were too low (and too many). This had never happened in Milwaukee’s American Family Field to cost a team a home run before, and the former “Miller Park” opened 26 years ago.
Yet the only time a ball about to be a home run hit the roof happened in the 9th inning of a play-off game, saving the home team from a crushing loss! It could have happened in a mid-May game. It could have happened in the third inning of an 8-2 loss. It could have happened when the Brewers were playing an inter-league game against the Angels. The odds were that if the fluke were going to happen at all to any team, it would have happened TO the Brewers, since its their home field. And heck, the retractable roof could have been open, meaning that there wouldn’t have been anything for France’s ball to hit.
But no. The first and only time, this particular stroke of bad luck (well, good luck for the Brewers) happened on national TV, in a critical game. Meanwhile the Brewers, who had the best record in baseball, are trying to finally get back to the World Series for the first time since 1982.
I alluded to my post on the old Ethics Scoreboard about the infamous Duke lacrosse team rape case in a recent EA post, suggesting that it may be a template for what we are going to see transpire in the still developing Cornell frat house gang rape saga. Fred Davidson, a cherished reader and commenter here, tracked down the essay on The Wayback Machine and sent the link in the comments. I’m reposting that essay here. If ever a prosecutor was a candidate to be just as unethical as Mike Nifong (who was disbarred), Letitia James is it. I want to acknowledge my webmaster for Ethics Alarms who edited and formatted all my posts, the talented Lauren Larson. Would that she was still working with me now.
***
From the North Carolina Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct:
“The prosecutor represents the sovereign and, therefore, should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of government powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute. During trial, the prosecutor is not only an advocate, but he or she also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all. In our system of criminal justice, the accused is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt. With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice; the prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence known to him or her that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.“
How Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong can reconcile his handling of the Duke lacrosse rape case with this explanatory comment from his bar association’s rule governing the ethics of prosecutors is a mystery. But it is no mystery what his violation of these principles has created: one of the worst ethics train wrecks of the past ten years, a mess that can stand with such recent ethics fiascos as the Terri Schiavo dispute and the Valerie Plame Affair. In fact, Nifong’s handiwork may have caused more human wreckage than either of these. But like all ethics train wrecks, this one had more than one shaky hand on the throttle:
The Duke lacrosse team: While not earning their horrific treatment by Nifong, many of the players on the team were irresponsible in their conduct, disrespectful to the hired exotic dancer who ultimately became their accuser, and reckless in their disregard for the reputation of the university and its sometimes contentious relations with the Durham community. For example, a few hours after the alleged rape, team member Ryan McFadyen sent an email to his team mates in which he fantasized about murdering and sexually abusing strippers. It may well have been composed as a tasteless joke, but it was certainly evidence of an unacceptable level of contempt and callousness toward the human beings the team had hired to entertain them at the party, not to mention strong evidence of a brain-pan insufficiency. McFadyen was suspended after a team mate, in another ethically questionable move, decided to circulate the disgusting e-mail so that it wound up in the hands of the police and, worse still, the media. Did it have any probative value in the case? No—McFadyen wasn’t one of the players implicated or indicted. Still, he ended up suspended from school, the local media used the e-mail to make the team look like a tribe of cannibals, and the seeds of racial conflict were sown and fertilized. The e-mail effectively threw gasoline on an already incendiary situation, and contributed mightily to the lacrosse team’s coach resigning and Duke canceling the lacrosse season.
Nice work, guys.
Today I’m having to waste time I could be using to finish Part 2 of this post, spamming the infantile rants of a banned commenter who is Big Mad that my tolerance for his/her/its bigotry finally ran out.
Well, here are some items I won’t have time to write full posts on…
1. Unethical (and idiotic) Sunny Hostin Quote of the Week. The lawyer on “The View” who thinks eclipses are proof of climate change actually said, “Had Biden just stayed in the White House and said, ‘I’m not gonna debate this man because he’s morally bankrupt,’ Biden might be the President today.”
And wouldn’t that have been grand! If only the cover-up of Biden’s dementia had been more effective…
2. A “Fix the problem” tale from the firehouse. The firehouse on my street, in a Northern Virginia neighborhood where everyone seems to own a dog (or three) has been putting out boxes of dog biscuits for the canines walking by to enjoy for more than a decade. There was even a special plastic box and a smaller one labeled “Back Up Biscuit Box.” My dog looks forward to his 9:30 pm jaunt to the Biscuit Box, but four nights ago both boxes and any sign of the red cardboard boxes had vanished. Spuds looked at me as if it was my fault. The next night, to be safe, I hid three biscuits in my pants pocket just in case, and sure enough, the firehouse had nothing. I fooled Spuds into thinking the treats had come from the mailbox on a nearby wall. On the third night, I had typed a letter to the firefighters and deposited it in the mailbox while again feigning biscuit retrieval. I explained what an excellent community relations gesture the dog biscuits were and how much my neighbors appreciated it. I also explained how much the ritual of walking to the firehouse brightened my sweet dog’s day. I urged them to reconsider the decision to end the tradition. Whatever it cost, I wrote, it was worth the expense to bring the community together, establish trust and affection for the firefighters, and make dozens of dogs happy. I signed my name, occupation, and address.
The biscuits were back the next night.
I was first made aware of the sudden re-emergence of a 2024 gang rape allegation as a media and social media obsession when a friend who was raped began posting furiously about the story on Facebook. A knee-jerk progressive, she is certain that there was a cover-up at Cornell and that the alleged victim is telling the truth, because all women must be believed.
I don’t know what really happened at the Chi Phi fraternity on a fateful October night in 2024, and neither do you, and neither does my friend. Anyone who presumes they do know based on a partisan or ideological bias has elected to board the newly launched Cornell Frat Rape Ethics Train Wreck in the dining car. Shame on them.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is having a bad year—look at the sudden resurgence of anti-Semitism here—and fraternity rape hysteria should be viewed with particular skepticism. The infamous Duke Lacrosse case occurred in 2006 and my commentary was lost when the old Ethics Scoreboard left the building, but it is still a tag on Ethics Alarms, with this the most directly relevant post. The imaginary gang rape that disgraced Rolling Stone was extensively covered here, however, as you can see. In 2014, “Rolling Stone” reporter Sabrina Erdly wrote a feature about an imaginary co-ed named “Jackie” being gang raped at a University of Virginia fraternity party. UVA president Teresa A. Sullivan, a good little feminist, suspended all fraternities with no actual evidence of wrongdoing. But you know, men are pigs, women are always the victims, and one must always believe all women, even imaginary ones (there was no “Jackie”) when they cry “Rape!”
Ethics Alarms has analyzed several instances of false rape claims as well as the cynical #MeToo fad, which, like the Cornell episode was weaponized by the Left for political gain. The hysteria got many sexual predators their just desserts, and also amassed many unjustly maligned male victims. I don’t know what happened at Cornell, but I do know that the case has already been co-opted by Democrats to inflame a core constituency, angry white progressive women convinced that the U.S. is an oppressive patriarchy that would have the culture emulating “A Handmaiden’s Tale” if it had its way. There’s an election approaching, after all. Hence the emergence of a mother who murdered her three children as the object of sympathy.
Here are what I consider salient facts based on what we do know:
Welcome to my world.
While you may think I spend my Ethics Alarms hours researching every imaginable source for interesting stories with ethics lessons to teach and then writing posts, and then responding to as many comments on the post as possible (70,000 such responses so far), which I believe makes me unique among bloggers with the number of commenters that I have. I also have to deal with the annoying task of blog moderation. That onerous and icky job is made more so when I am forced to ban a commenter for violating the clearly stated comment policies; it get particularly annoying when a banned commenter keeps finding ways to sneak in comments anyway post-banning, which almost all of them do, validating my judgment that they don’t have the ethical compass necessary to contribute here.
The most recent comment-bomber has been virulent anti-Semite Cassandra’s AI Agent, who hasn’t come close to the record number of unauthorized comments as the pompous A Friend, but it’s early yet. In the most recent spammed comment, which CAA posted at least three times, he/she/or it claims to be virulent anti-Semite Alizia Tyler, who was banned for using every topic to engage in her Jew-hating hobby. Many commenters had hypothesized that earlier, and I demurred, for several reasons. CAA has a different email address than Alizia, and unlike Alizia, doesn’t write like a bot, or as profusely. CAA is also an asshole, which Aliza was not. I’ve had off-site exchanges with Alizia in which I found her to be committed to being a productive commenter, even asking me whether I felt she should stop commenting in the best interests of Ethics Alarms.
If Alizia is in fact CAA, she’s clearly snapped. And because CAA is an unethical asshole, I can’t take anything he/she/or it says as necessarily true.
