End Of Week Wit’s End Ethics, 5/20/2022

Whenever I see one of the several “Love is Love” lawn signs in my Alexandria, VA. neighborhood, I think of the poster girl for untrustworthy teachers, Mary Kay Letourneau. This is her anniversary, the day she married her former student, her rape victim ten years earlier, and the father of two of her children, Vili Fualaau, 22.  Letourneau had been released from prison after serving a seven-and-a-half year sentence for raping him while teaching at Shorewood Elementary School, in the Seattle suburb of Burien.  Letourneau, was 34 when she began  a sexual relationship with the 12-year-old. At the time, she was married and had four children. 

But it was all OK, you see, because they were in love. I wrote about Letourneau several times. I ended this post, a few years before the happy couple’s marriage, this way:

It is absolutely a perversion of law, ethics and common sense that she should be permitted to pick up where she left off seven years ago, building on the young man’s attachments he had formed toward a trusted teacher to exploit him sexually and emotionally. Allowing her this creates an incentive for other disturbed teachers and adult supervisors to distort their young charges’ affections, ignoring the long term harm that is certain to result.

What Villi needed years ago was counseling and treatment, so that he could escape this illicit and illegal emotional attachment created by his teacher. Unfortunately, Villi’s family is of the same strange mindset as the Springer crowd, and never perceived the wrongfulness of LeTourneau’s conduct, or the damage it caused. Her betrayal of trust screamed out for a civil suit, as surely as any Catholic priest’s molestation. Then, perhaps her victim could have received help, and would now be moving into healthy relationships and a life far away from his seductress-teacher.

That is not to be, it appears. But a relationship that was ethically wrong in its inception does not suddenly become right simply because it is no longer illegal.

Yecchh. But today’s Disney employees would probably approve…

1. She truly is an incompetent and ignorant woman, you know. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to Instagram to join the fatuous “Roe v. Wade is being reversed because of religious fanatics!” chorus with this argument:

For people who say ‘oh, but you’re harming a life, I believe this is life’, well some religions don’t. So how about that?

Our Jewish brothers and sisters, they are able to have an abortion according to their faith.

There are so many faiths that do not have this same definition of life as fundamentalist Christians. And so what about their rights? What about their rights to exercise their faith?

It’s ridiculous and it is theocratic. It’s authoritarian. It is wrong.

I shouldn’t have to specify what’s moronic about that, but just in case:

  • And some religions believe women shouldn’t be educated, drive, or own property. How about that?
  • In a government that separates church and state, a particular religion’s tenets and teaching is irrelevant.
  • AOC’s premise is either mistaken or deliberately false. Fundamentalist Christianity is not the basis for believing that the unborn have the right to life.
  • No individual has the right to exercise his or her faith  when doing so constitutes a serious crime without a Constitutional pass to do so.
  • Passing a law that bans conduct that a religion favors or allows is not theocratic. Nor is it authoritarian, since such laws are created through the democratic process.

She’s an idiot. People that simultaneously dim-witted and convinced of their own certitude are a menace, and should never be elected to a position of authority.

2. And this is how too many universities view their role in society. I wrote about the horrifying Professor Charles Negy case last year. The University of Central Florida set out to destroy Professor Negy, who was tenured and had taught at the university for decades by inviting students to bring formal complaints against him “based on abusive or discriminatory behavior by any faculty or staff,” because the politically incorrect (but accurate) tweets he had posted caused black students to  demanding his dismissal. The University knew it couldn’t fire him for that, so they openly sought to find an excuse.  The tweets:

 “If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”

No. Good point. Then,

“Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”

Wise and true.

Negy was fired, but an arbitrator just reinstated him. Like Oberlin, which destroyed  an innocent family business to kow-tow to the demands of black students who claimed it was racist and lost the resulting law suit, the University of Central Florida has neither the integrity nor the decency to admit it was wrong. Instead, it’s “doubling down,” saying,

“U.C.F. stands by the actions taken following a thorough investigation that found repeated misconduct in Professor Negy’s classroom, including imposing his views about religion, sex and race. However, we are obligated to follow the arbitrator’s ruling.”

These are bad people, and all the more dangerous because they instill unethical values in their students.

8 thoughts on “End Of Week Wit’s End Ethics, 5/20/2022

  1. #2: Two questions now:
    1) Does the Florida university board of governors have the guts to rid the school of its president for his mismanagement?
    2) Are those running the school vengefully stupid? Will they now sulk but leave Negy alone, or harass him until they give him cause for further action (where this current ruling could only work against them in new procedings)?

    • A better question is how all levels of the professional government and education become almost 100% Democrat? A long time ago, I read a survey of partisanship in hiring. The question asked was, “Would you hire someone on the opposing party if they were the best candidate for the job?”. Disappointingly, about 1/3 of the Republicans answered ‘no’. Alarmingly, over 2/3 of Democrats answered ‘no’.

      Partisanship is much stronger among Democrats than Republicans. I’m sure there are Republicans who are Republicans because their parents are and they were raised believing all Democrats were bigots and idiots and you can’t respect anyone like that, but I don’t know any. I have known a lot of Democrats who think that way. Yellow dog Democrats are a real thing, but I don’t know of a similar term for Republicans. This explains the survey results.

      The importance for this post is that even if an institution is 100% Republican, Democrats will be hired if they are the best candidate. Once there are more than a few Democrats, however, it becomes difficult for Republicans to be hired. This becomes very rapid in administration. Once a Democrat is hired, the Republicans under them are rapidly replaced with Democrats, no matter what the damage is to the institution. In a private company, this may lead to bankruptcy. Governments can just become more corrupt and inefficient, however. This explains why there are still some companies with significant numbers of Republicans and why companies owned by Democrats seem to become insane.

      What do you do about it, though? I mean, the obvious solution is to never hire a Democrat, but that can’t be ethical. Democrats are about 40% of the population. You can’t just exclude them from all public sector jobs. However, if you do allow them, they will exclude the other 60%, resulting in the current situation, which isn’t ethical. I would like to see a group of parents sue that their children can’t get an fair education because the schools are a partisan extension of the Democratic party and demand that the state pay their tuition to private schools until the faculty and administration include significant political diversity.

  2. 1. Nice dissection! Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has earned herself another big ole’ Mr. T “I pity the fool” trophy. I’m guessing she’s going to need a bigger wall…or maybe a Morton building outside of town.

  3. AOC just got engaged to a fellow student she met at the Boston college they attended. Based on her level of idiocy I wonder about his intellectual competence as well as the level of academic rigor of said college

  4. AOC seems to be demonstrating the flip-side of what I felt was a worrying trend. As certain laws advanced, such as requiring all companies of a certain size to offer contraceptives on their health care plans, it seemed that the only recourse various Catholic groups had was to cry religious freedom, as opposed to keeping the argument substantive about the actual issue. They often won on that ground, but it seemed a cop-out to me. Fundamentally, I believe that any Catholic moral stance can be, and should be justified to the public at large with only secular arguments. Falling back to religious freedom exemptions makes it seem like there aren’t good reasons for Catholics to hold the moral stance that they do. The public, certainly, perceives it that way.

    So here we have the flip side of that. It would seem that AOC would rather avoid any substantive debate about abortion and instead seek recourse to the separation of church and state. Therefore she has no choice but frame the alleged overturn of Roe v Wade as a state-sponsored act of religion.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.