Ethics Dunce, Unethical Quote Of The Week, And A Kaboom! For Good Measure: Clark University


“Coercion is the use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to something they may not want to do – like being sexual or performing certain sexual acts. Examples of some coercive statements include: “If you love me you would have sex with me .”, “If you don’t have sex with me I will find someone who will.”, and “I’m not sure I can be with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with me.” Coercive statements are often part of many campus acquaintance rapes. Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault.”

—The Clark University Dean of Students office, in its definition of “Rape and Sexual Assault and Related Terms”

That’s right; Clark University’s position was that when a manipulative boy friend or, presumably, girl friend, used the age-old ploy of emotional blackmail to wheedle for sex, it constituted sexual assault. KABOOM! Brains…on…walls, can’t… typxvtu…pfg

OK, I’m better now. The Worchester, Mass. university quietly removed the outrageous definition as soon as it turned up, with appropriate mockery, on the web, and then denied it had ever been there. (This is the place where Instapundit would note the tuition paid by Clark students.)

Writes a stunned Prof. Volokh:

So saying “If you don’t have sex with me I will find someone who will” is “coercion,” and thus means that any resulting sex is not consensual. This means that getting sex that way is “rape and/or sexual assault” (because it’s “coerced sexual contact”), and in particular may well be “acquaintance rape.”

Words fail me — though they apparently failed the Clark University Dean of Students office as well.

It sounds like his head might have exploded too!

Gee, do you think this kind of increasingly common gender bullying and distortion of reason, fairness and logic for ideological ends might have caused some non-racist, non-sexist individuals to wonder what further horrors feminist-pandering President Hillary Clinton would have encouraged, and to vote for someone else? Do you think some non-white supremacists might reasonably conclude that if  eight years of a hard-left, divisive, victim-mongering Democratic administration could lead a school to employ this kind of Orwellian definition to throw young men out of their college, then eight years had done damage enough?

If I may digress a bit: I just had a long-time friend, whom I had once hired to assist in an ethics seminar, summarily de-friend me on Facebook today  after I pointed out that this insulting, false, hateful, sexist, smug and divisive screed in the New Yorker was not “spot-on,” as she wrote (to a throng of “likes”) when she posted it, but was, in truth, miserable, arrogant, bigoted, partyist, crap. Here is a sample…if you read the whole thing, position plastic tarps around the room first:

“Now is the time to stop suggesting that sexism was absent in the election because white women did not overwhelmingly vote for Clinton. Misogyny is not the sole preserve of men…Clinton was expected to be perfect, according to contradictory standards, in an election that became a referendum on her likability.

Now is the time to ask why America is far behind many other countries (see: Rwanda) in its representation of women in politics. Now is the time to explore mainstream attitudes toward women’s ambition, to ponder to what extent the ordinary political calculations that all politicians make translate as moral failures when we see them in women. Clinton’s careful calibration was read as deviousness. But would a male politician who is carefully calibrated—Mitt Romney, for example—merely read as carefully calibrated? Now is the time to be precise about the meanings of words. Trump saying “They let you do it” about assaulting women does not imply consent, because consent is what happens before an act…”

I should note that this wasn’t even the part of the essay that I chose to dismantle in my reply to its Facebook exposure.

Now is the time to realize that it is hollow-eyed, mouth-foaming, self-righteous lunatics like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the author of this mess, that many, many voters did not want to see get their hands on the levers of power, especially with a complicit journalism establishment, lest the derangement of Clark University find its way into our laws and culture.


Filed under Education, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Quotes, Ethics Train Wrecks, Facebook, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Leadership

17 responses to “Ethics Dunce, Unethical Quote Of The Week, And A Kaboom! For Good Measure: Clark University

  1. joed68

    So, most married men are routinely committing sexual assault?

    • Other Bill


      Good thing I didn’t go to Clark (the school founded by a shoe manufacturer who had the buildings designed in such a way that if the school failed the buildings could be used as a shoe factory).I guess I was raping my college girlfriend for our three plus years together because early on I told her I didn’t see much sense in us continuing without us having sex. (You know, actual sex, the kind even Bill Clinton would consider sex … I think.)

  2. Other Bill

    Frankly, I’m surprised the school deleted the authentic frontier gibberish. I think that kind of thinking is pretty darned mainstream on college campuses these days.

  3. Aleksei

    This kind of radical feminism was covered quite humorously by Family Guy. Kudos to Seth MacFarlane to be willing to poke fun at the left, despite being a flaming liberal himself.

    • Seth, however, is at least a true satirist in that he takes on all sides. He wants the laugh. That kind of comedy is almost dead on TV. Virtually all “satirists”—Amy Shumer, Chelsey Handler, Kimmel, Colbert, Maher, SNL are one-sided in their barbs, and were incapable of making fun of Obama, the cowards.

      • Aleksei

        He is willing to be an “equal opportunity employer” in the subjects he ridicules and I think that is great. As for all the the other good folks you listed, the election has shown them to be hacks, trying to blackmail the public by threatening to move to Canada. Maybe they can be accused by the Clark U folks of emotionally abusing the American public and be put on double secret probation?

  4. Huh, so that’s how “acquaintance rape” works. You just say, “I don’t think we can remain acquaintances if you don’t have sex with me.” What an insidious trick. I shall have to resist the overwhelming temptation to try that on my acquaintances. /sarcasm It looks like someone picked up one psychology textbook in their life and got the serious topics of emotionally abusive and sexually exploitative relationships conflated with sexual assault, probably because the term “sexual predator” is erroneously used to refer to the latter instead of just the former.

    Also, the way this moronic definition of sexual assault is phrased allows for any permutation of sexes, but that’s just for plausible deniability. Realistically, they’re making this ridiculable statement because they believe all problems predominantly faced by human females are caused by human males, and therefore no human females are responsible for their own problems. That sounds nice to them, because they don’t realize what it implies: By denying that a female carries responsibility for her own choices and the problems they cause her, the statement asserts that she doesn’t actually have any agency, that she’s not competent as a person to make independent decisions, and is never obligated to become so. The male can be blamed for his choices and desires, implying he has agency.

    Many people who call themselves feminists can spin every possible outcome of this scenario to serve their own collective ego. If the female has sex, she’s coerced. If it was the female who asked for sex, she is assertive about her “needs” and has the right to judge her male for not meeting them. (Males don’t get to do that. Candid communication is impossible because of… some sort of mysteriously unquantifiable inherent “power” imbalance.) If the couple breaks up, the male must be a jerk who doesn’t appreciate the female.

    The fundamental flaw in feminist dogma is that it, like most other “equality” movements, tries to eat its cake and have it, too. The oppressed group in question cannot take responsibility for their problems, because all of them are caused by those in power. The oppressed people can’t be expected to fix the problems, because that would imply that not fixing them represents a flawed character, which they obviously don’t have. However, those in power cannot be allowed to fix the problems, because that would deny the self-empowerment of the oppressed group. Nor can the two groups work together, because those in power cannot be allowed to carry their own evil ideas forward, but neither can they understand the values of the oppressed group, and if even if they did succeed in adopting them then it would be cultural appropriation and… I’m getting dizzy. Maybe those in power should just go away and leave the oppressed people alone. Wait, then the oppressed people wouldn’t know how to do the important things that those in power know how to do and their society would break down, and that was the whole plot of Atlas Shrugged. The only solution according to the “equality” ideology appears to be a heroic exercise of some sort of superior character by the oppressed group, which admittedly we did see in the culture of high academic work-ethic with Asians and Jews in the 20th century, if we’re allowed to generalize. This would be well and good, if they didn’t find it so much easier to point fingers and shout, as humans are wont to do.

    My message to oppressed people: Look, with great power comes great responsibility [citation needed], so if you want to stop being oppressed, you have to learn how to be responsible. You can’t be empowered if you can’t be blamed. That is a fundamental principle of karma–the real kind, not the mystical Just World Fallacy kind. Your actions become your habits become your character becomes your destiny, et cetera.

    I assign the entire Dean of Students office a 1000-word essay on the meaning of “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and its prevalence in contemporary American society. Extra credit for incorporating discussion on the phrase “feminism is the radical idea that women are people”, which is an infinitely superior idea to rally around.

    • Wayne

      Maybe I could cited for a “sexual microaggression” if I somehow would up at Clark University and smiled at an attractive woman. Also I guess that they don’t want any guys straying out of the “friend zone”.

    • joed68

      You just burned a lot of glucose trying to fathom the unfathomable.

      • You don’t think I succeeded?

        This is the sort of understanding we’ll need if we want to change people. We’ll still need to listen to their point of view, and revise our understanding accordingly, but the concepts described above are key points that need addressing before we can move forward as a society.

  5. Has anyone heard of the trope Let Me Be Evil .

    If this trend of dumbing down the definition of rape continues, I wonder how many men will say, “Then let Me Rape”?

  6. I think this is actually amazingly good news.

    No, really.

    As with any rights movement, people start agitating for change to address real inequities, and then as they achieve success, they experience a focus drift into weirder and less pertinent territory.

    Why do they do that? Who knows? Maybe the proponents have been fighting so long they’ve internalised the fight and they don’t know how to live without it? Maybe they’re financially driven and have little to no prospects outside the struggle? Hell, maybe they’re true believers, and they really do believe that this kind of coercion should trigger the legal definition of rape. I don’t pretend to know what actually goes on in the heads of fanatics, I just deal with the fallout.

    But what does that mean? It means that feminism has gotten to the point where now that women have equal legal standing under the law, they can focus on smaller, more insane items. Don’t get me wrong, they have to be resisted, argued against, and mocked for their lunacy, lest the beast damage something in its death-throes, but on the whole I think we can be proud of the decline of feminism. It means the original, worthy cause succeeded.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s