On Thursday, Virginia Governor and Democratic candidate for president Terry McAuliffe issued a Task Force report on campus sexual assault organized by the state’s Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring. This 107-page report was perhaps most notable for what it did not include. It did not once mention the phrase “false accusations.” It appears being framed does not concern Virginia policymakers. Perhaps for that reason, this report, which discussed how Virginia colleges need to respond to sexual assault allegations didn’t mention the highest-profile rape allegation on a Virginia campus in recent years. Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, or the false accuser “Jackie” were, it seems, not relevant to a discussion about campus rape claims in Virginia.
If you wanted to destroy academia, it would be harder to come up with better plans than these people have.
My advice to potential faculty hires — or student applicants — at Northwestern: Go somewhere else. As law professor Jonathan Adler notes in The Washington Post, Northwestern threw academic freedom “under the bus.”
The good news is that Kipnis’ experience has generated a national wave of outrage. Even feminist website Jezebel wrote: “As feminist student activists fight to expand their circle of vulnerability in collegiate life, Title IX has gone from a law designed to protect college students from sexual misconduct and discrimination to a means by which professors are put on trial for their tweets.”
In New York magazine, Jonathan Chait observed: “I highly doubt that the inquiry against Kipnis will result in any important formal sanction. … But the slim possibility of actual administrative punishment is not the problem her story reveals. The problem is that a major body of progressive campus thought believes her publication of a dissenting column merits punishment.”
And at Reason,Robby Soave pointed out that bureaucrats whose power comes from an outrageously expansive reading of Title IX have expanded that interpretation to include a claim that “criticizing Title IX violates Title IX.”
Yes, Congress should have very public hearings about this. But they almost certainly won’t.
he would have failed my constitutional law class if he had tried to justify such sweeping authority to categorically rewrite existing law and confer benefits Congress never provided as “prosecutorial discretion.”
I think his reputation as a Constitutional (or any other kind of) scholar is highly overrated. It’s nice to see the courts finally stepping up to rein in these power grabs.
Meeting the new target of an 80 percent cut by 2050 would require the use of even more speculative technologies, including those that the CCST reserachers considered to be “in development, not yet available” or merely “research concepts.”
Yet such problems do not seem to impinge much on Sacramento’s political class. Any group willing, as is most egregiously the case with the Latino caucus, to wage war on their own people, are not going to worry too much about such subtleties.
So then, who wins? It’s certainly not the environment, but some of the oligarchs in Silicon Valley may benefit as they have been feeding at the renewable-energy trough at the expense of less-well-off ratepayers. Then there’s the whole bureaucracy, and their academic allies, who can enjoy profitable employment by dreaming up new ways to make life in California more expensive and difficult for average citizens – envisioning schemes that the taxpayers have to finance. And, certainly, the climate change agenda could benefit multifamily housing builders, who will seek to force often-unwilling Californians into residences in which most would rather not spend their lives.
At some point, people are going to get fed up, but we don’t seem to be close yet.