<p>Apparently Yale doesn’t require reading 1984 of its English majors.
Remember? Slavery is Freedom?</p>
<p>[Feminism’s</a> failure to defend Muslim women | #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam](<a href=“http://www.radicalislam.org/content/feminisms-failure-defend-muslim-women]Feminism’s”>http://www.radicalislam.org/content/feminisms-failure-defend-muslim-women)</p>
<p>^yes, Bloom is responsible for sexual misconduct, given his role. When he agreed to finally meet with Wolf his condition was to do so in a social setting, a dinner, along with wine he brought at her apartment. His agenda seems quite clear. A separate issue is Wolf’s own judgment and choices.</p>
<p>Well, I’d put the burden of judgement on the “adult” in this situation. Or all the “adults” in the administration who don’t seem to be addressing this problem.</p>
<p>The burden of judgement is always on the shoulders of the person in the power position. If I am sexually harrrassed at work and this effects my career, I can sue.</p>
<p>At some point, students will begin to sue. Students have no power in school, and this is WHY there are rules in place to defend them.</p>
<p>
Perhaps more people would feel comfortable with this statement if instead of “absolve me from responsibility” it said “shield me from the consequences.” It’s imprudent to make yourself easy prey, even if the moral fault is all on the part of the predator.</p>
<p>
You would have the burden of proof of showing that you were indeed harassed. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that by Wolf’s account, the professor came to a house that she shared with a research assistant on that professor’s staff. That’s her side of the story.</p>
<p>Maybe his side of the story was that she was essentially stalking him (auditing a class, arranging an “independent study”, pestering him to meet with her to go over her poetry - when he thought his obligations began and end with evaluating her work at end of term). Maybe his side of the story was that he told her she needed to come during his office hours and she wouldn’t do that, and was always wanting to meet somewhere else. Maybe his side of the story is that he went to the house at the invitation of his research assistant and was utterly surprised to find her there. Maybe his side of the story is that he put his hand on her knee, not her thigh, and was totally stunned at her reaction – but it was obvious that she was very drunk so he decided to leave the house at that point. </p>
<p>We don’t know. But in any real life process, he would have had the opportunity to fully present his side of the story, whatever it was. And again, she would have had the burden of proof. Her assertion that she extended the invitation, lit the candles, and drank with him would not be helpful to her case. </p>
<p>Since I have a background as a lawyer, which includes long experience of having to judge a client’s credibility before agreeing to take on a lawsuit, I think it is simply natural for me to fill in the blanks of what the other person is likely to say. Some of it is pretty obvious … that is, of course he would say he touched her knee in a non-sexual way, not her inner thigh. That fits into the category of “what they always say.” The problem is, his conduct of leaving right away and commenting that she was “disturbed” might be deemed to be more consistent with his anticipated “defense” than with her claims. There are some holes in her story that, to a lawyer’s eyes, are big enough to drive a truck through.</p>
<p>It’s immaterial. Bloom would never end up with that kind of power, today. First, because he was an English prof, and nobody cares about that, anymore. Second, because a guy like that would just get into too much trouble these days because there ARE processes in place which were not in place in the 1980s.</p>
<p>Hope you are right poetgrl.</p>
<p>I think you are right poetgirl. If in fact Bloom’s bad behavior was as notorious as JHS says it was, I don’t think Yale or any other school would want to take on the liability risk. (After all, if indeed there are other incidents, a complaint from one person is likely to draw out other complainant, and evidence of a pattern might well be admissible to prove the primary complainant’s case)</p>