Sat Nov 3 12:22:43 CDT 2007
I have no idea what happened in the debate round where one side alleges that "threats of sexual violence against female debaters in the room in explicit terms" occurred.
I do know, however, that unless the matter has already been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, that public defenses are "not helpful". That's because they can be interpreted as intimidation and pressure on the alleged victims. While I don't doubt that the intent is merely to get their side of the story out, from the perspective of the victims/accusers it can easily appear to be an attempt to strong-arm silence. For example, a simple "our administration knows about it and supports us" seems from one perspective a simple reason to believe that no wrong was done but from another perspective seems like a message that the victims/accusers will get nowhere and should just give it up. And "what they are doing is bad for the community" is, no doubt, only intended as a plea for support, but can be understood as getting friends to pile-on in an attempt to intimidate the accusers/victims. And unless the matter has already been resolved, the various public utterances seem to me only to add fuel to the fire.
I put the phrase "not helpful" in quotes for a reason. One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard about from a lawyer to a client was: "Remember 'not helpful'. Every time you feel like saying something about it, remember 'not helpful'. Every fucking time."
I hope whatever happened can be worked out amiably. After would be great time to discuss policy and implications.
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman