Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I can't help it; I'm going to try one more time.
No, one doesn't have to have a hidden agenda to react negatively to things one perceives are wrong or misguided. But the way you express your negative reaction—the constant (and dismissive) references to unnamed but obviously sinister "activists" and "feminists," the random link-dropping, the mantra-like refrain that "they" claim there is a "crisis" supported by things like reference to an article about the Miss USA situation, where none of "them" actually make that claim—all suggest someone who is not objective and who has an agenda that if not hidden is at least personal or part of some other agenda.
|
All I can do is reiterate my position.
There's nothing sinister about feminist activists. They exist. Particularly on college campuses across the country. And they have been and continue to advocate for changes to the way college administrators process claims under Title IX and the Clery Act. This is simply a fact.
In order to gain traction and shape public opinion, they have vastly inflated the scope of the "problem" and conflated the small number of serious assaults with the much more typical instances that are represented by the example at Swarthmore. This is not some new technique, activists have been known to distort and exaggerate. One would hope that the media would report the facts a bit more objectively, but we shouldn't hold our breath, and they obviously haven't on this subject. Google "college rape crisis" and you get 12 million hits.
IMO, the policy changes that have been made and are continuing to be made are a dangerous erosion of due process for the accused. The fact that they are being made as a reaction to a distorted and exaggerated issue makes it all the more disturbing that we are jettisoning such fundamental underpinnings of our concept and tradition of justice.
A) One may have a different opinion and not be concerned with due process. B) Or one may think that it's worth it to erode due process for the accused, because this crisis is so severe that it calls for something drastic. To the extent that I can, I'm attempting to highlight the faulty logic of B) because if there is no crisis, we certainly don't need to take such drastic measures.
There's no hidden agenda other than I'm expressing my opinion on a message board where someone posted on the topic. I think the policy changes will do a lot of harm and negligible good. And that's usually what happens when a solution is devised for a non-problem.
Threaded Mode
