I. Let’s give a whole car to USC.
Nearly 100 students attended a rally at noon on Monday demanding a tenured professor be fired after he sent a reply-all email last Thursday to the student body noting that “accusers sometimes lie.”
Professor James Moore, a tenured professor at the University of Southern California, replied to a campus wide email fatuously demanding that students “Believe Survivors” on the day of Christine Ford’s testimony with a reply-all message that…
“If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now.”
For a teacher, this was a responsible and important point to make. It is also undeniable, except in dishonesty, ignorance and hysteria. So what was the campus response? Hundreds of emails from “concerned” students and alumni condemning the engineering professor. USC students Audrey Mechling and Joelle Montier organized a Facebook rally against him, entitled “Times Up for James Moore.” Nearly 100 students gathered to shout, “Times Up, No Moore!” The crowd then paraded its bias and ignorance, and marched to the office of Dean Jack Knott. He, of course…
“What [Professor Moore] sent was extremely inappropriate, hurtful, insensitive. We are going to try to do everything we can to try to create a better school, to educate the faculty,” said Dean Knott to the crowd. “This is going to be a multi-pronged effort. We are going to have a faculty meeting later this week around implicit bias, sensitivity towards [sexual assault]….”
That’s academia today! At Georgetown, a professor tweets that white males should be killed and castrated, and the administrators shrug and say she has a right to her opinion. AT USC, a professor corrects indefensible cant that rejects basic ethical and judicial principles, and a dean says that he must be punished.
People actually pay to send their children to be warped by these places.
II. Let’s always believe survivors who know how to beat lie detectors.
The fact that Dr. Ford had been declared “truthful” in her polygraph test was always one of the worst reasons to believe her, but now that test throws legitimate suspicion on her account. The machines are notoriously unreliable, but the argument was that the fact that Ford was eager to take the test indicated her confidence in her account. Today, Fox News received this letter from a man who claims to be Ford’s ex-boyfriend:
Of course, it could be completely innocent that a woman who suddenly dredged up a forgotten alleged incident just in time to use it to derail the confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee her party opposes and submitted to a lie detector test as evidence of her veracity considered herself an expert on beating lie detector tests.
III. Ethics Hero meets Ethics Dunce
Seldom do we see so many people so passionately and angrily advocating a position that is indefensible in law, logic, fact, common sense, history or fairness. That’s the mob mentality that Democrats and the mainstream media has created, however. They begin with the assumption that the judge must be guilty. They state that he is a “serial rapist” though there is no evidence of any rape. They talk as if it is normal for high school incidents to be considered relevant to assessing the character and trustworthiness of a public servant with an unblemished career, when in fact it is unheard-of. Their arguments, like their logic, is disjointed, and they will change subjects to avoid dealing with their gaping flaws.
A typical anti-Kavanaugh protester confronted Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana on his way through a Senate building walkway. Monday. She demanded , “Why are you supporting Kavanaugh?” So he stopped and asked her the Golden Rule question that the Democrats and “the resistance” have ignored from the beginning of this disgusting example of the politics of personal destruction. Would she want her loved one to be destroyed by uncorroborated, unproven accusations of a horrific act? The protester either took this as a rhetorical question, or just doesn’t understand the ethical principle of reciprocity. I’m guessing the latter. The other key ethics question would also presumably be beyond her, Kant’s test of whether this would be a standard she would be willing to have applied universally, in all cases. Democrats answer this one by saying “Of course! Unsubstantiated accusations of decades old high school incidents should be universally applied to and disqualify all conservative judges appointed by a President we hate when he will shift the ideological balance of the court.”
Deciding to ask an easier question, Cassidy resorted to, “Why wouldn’t I support Kavanaugh?”
Protester: “Because rapists are bad.”
Never mind that nobody, even Ford, has claimed that Kavanaugh is a rapist. This is such a spectacular straw man that it will start singing “I I only had a brain” any minute now.
Cassidy: “Wait a second — everybody there said that it did not happen. So why am I going to–”
Protester: “So you’re going to believe Mark Judge over a woman?”
Conveniently ignoring the other two witnesses who also deny seeing what Ford claims…
Cassidy: “No, I’m going to believe her best friend.”
Protester: “Her best friend didn’t say it didn’t happen. Her best friend said she wasn’t told about it.”
The issue is the lack of anyone other than Ford who says that “it” did happen. The protester is resorting to nit-picking to avoid the issue.
Cassidy: “She said she didn’t remember.”
Protester: “So you’re OK as a doctor to harm a woman?”
Now, as the protester resorts to gibberish and deliberate misrepresentation, the Senator tries the Golden Rule again, and Kant.
Cassidy: “Wait a second – are you OK as a person to go ahead and to accept a non-corroborated charge to destroy someone’s life? If it destroyed your life, your son’s life, or your husband’s? Wait a second, answer my question. If it was your husband, your son, your father, whose life has been destroyed by uncorroborated, would you like that?”
Protester: “I would support a full FBI investigation.”
Cassidy: “No, no. Would you like that? An uncorroborated charge, destroying—”
Protester: “I wouldn’t marry somebody that was a drunk.”
Translation: “How dare you expect me to defend my position? By the way, I’m an idiot.”
Cassidy: “Oh no, wait a second. Uncorroborated. Answer the question. I don’t think you’re able to. Because you know it’s unfair.”
Protester: “I would stand up.”
Cassidy: “You know it’s unfair.”
Protester: “I would fight. And I would make sure women are heard. Clearly you’re OK if a rapist goes on the Supreme Court.”
This sounds like a Facebook exchange. When out of arguments, resort to bumper stickers, non sequiturs, and deliberate misrepresentations.
Cassidy: “No, I’m not. But then on the other hand, clearly you’re OK, the absence of evidence obviously means nothing to you.”
Protester: “No, there is evidence. Look at the standard. How many people are in jail for less?”
How many? None, that’s how many, because there is, in fact, no evidence, and nobody, ever, has been convicted on uncorroborated 35-tear old accusations. Obviously the protester has no idea what the standard is.
This makes her a bit better than most Democrats trying to smear Kavanaugh, I suppose. They know what the standard is, know the standard they are establishing will be disastrous, and they are trying to establish it anyway.