RCMP quash sexual assault rumour

Police in Whitehorse caution that spreading false information can have negative impact on victims

RCMP in Whitehorse are asking people to be more responsible with their use of social media after a false rumour about sexual assaults in the city took flight this week.

Messages on sites like Twitter and Facebook were warning women to be careful because of a string of sexual assaults, information that was false, according to RCMP spokesperson Don Rogers.

He said social media sites need to be used responsibly because spreading false information can have a negative impact.

“It discourages other victims of crime from coming forward and we certainly don’t want to see that happen,” he said. “And for people who have reported sexual offences or people who have reported serious crimes, to have false information circulating re-victimizes those people again, and this is very, very concerning.”

Rogers said reports of 47 or 49 unsolved sexual assault cases in Whitehorse this summer are incorrect.

He said since May, there have been 29 reported cases, four in the last week.

RCMP say they will continue to investigate unsolved cases, and women's groups in the city have spoken with police and will continue to offer safety advice.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/10/27/north-whitehorse-assault-rumour.html?cmp=rss

RCMP quash sexual assault rumour

Police in Whitehorse caution that spreading false information can have negative impact on victims

RCMP in Whitehorse are asking people to be more responsible with their use of social media after a false rumour about sexual assaults in the city took flight this week.

Messages on sites like Twitter and Facebook were warning women to be careful because of a string of sexual assaults, information that was false, according to RCMP spokesperson Don Rogers.

He said social media sites need to be used responsibly because spreading false information can have a negative impact.

“It discourages other victims of crime from coming forward and we certainly don’t want to see that happen,” he said. “And for people who have reported sexual offences or people who have reported serious crimes, to have false information circulating re-victimizes those people again, and this is very, very concerning.”

Rogers said reports of 47 or 49 unsolved sexual assault cases in Whitehorse this summer are incorrect.

He said since May, there have been 29 reported cases, four in the last week.

RCMP say they will continue to investigate unsolved cases, and women's groups in the city have spoken with police and will continue to offer safety advice.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/10/27/north-whitehorse-assault-rumour.html?cmp=rss

CAIN: 'I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED'

"I have never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association. I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless."

Story here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45099767/ns/today-today_news/t/cain-says-he-was-falsely-accused-harassment/#

CAIN: 'I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED'

"I have never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association. I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless."

Story here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45099767/ns/today-today_news/t/cain-says-he-was-falsely-accused-harassment/#

Blowing old allegations into headline news: The sex rumors about Herman Cain, and the ugly spectre of black men as sexual predators

POLITICO reports that back in the 1990s, "at least" two unnamed female employees of the National Restaurant Association, which black GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain headed from 1996-1999, complained to colleagues and senior association officials about alleged inappropriate sexual behavior by Cain involving alleged conversations supposedly "filled" with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, which supposed unspecified conduct allegedly offended the women and forced them to leave their jobs at the trade group. The unnamed women supposedly signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts. The agreements, we are told, included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

POLITICO says it knows the identities of the two women but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

So the uppity black Republican is crucified by innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations, and the women who supposedly were wronged can't be subjected to the well-honed scalpel of cross-examination by those few media types who'd be willing to subject them to it.

In the days ahead, some members of the news media will try to dredge up the more-than-decade-old allegations in the hope of "trying" the claims in the court of last resort, the American media circus. The same media circus, by the way, that gave such a fair "hearing" to the Duke lacrosse boys, the Hofstra defendants and too many others to chronicle. And, yes, that was sarcasm.

In the end, the result of such efforts is as predictable as it will be unsatisfying: it will be "he said/she said," which means, he loses, because when it comes to sex allegations in America, the accusation becomes its own conviction, and it's usually enough to destroy any man, especially a prominent black Republican.

The Cain innuendo raises the spectre of America's shameful habit of stereotyping black men and boys as hyper-sexualized primitives, barely able to control their urges when it comes to women. It was that ugly stereotype that made a white woman's cry of "rape" a death sentence for countless innocent black men and boys in the Old South, and in too many other places (Duluth, most prominently).

Remember the 1897 New York Times piece we talked about earlier this year? It was an unabashed defense of the practice of lynching blacks for the crime of rape. The writer noted that the victims of such lynchings were "generally black negroes of the lowest order" because, he asserted, "the negro is generally the criminal" and "he seems particularly given to this odious crime." What about false claims? Make sure you're sitting down when you read this: "The only ground of objection to this mode of dealing with these criminals is the fear that the innocent might suffer. As the most careful precautions are taken against this result it is not a likely thing lest the wrong man is executed."

Have these attitudes really changed?  Surely the New York Times would never again print such an odious celebration of prejudice against black men, but the unspoken beliefs still bubble just beneath the surface. Can you say "Hofstra"?  As Clarence Thomas said at the circus that masqueraded as his Senate confirmation hearing: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

How should the allegations about Cain be treated?  The way the news media treated the sexual assault allegation against Al Gore. Or, rather, didn't treat it. The news media barefly covered it because it wasn't newsworthy, you say?  But a rape claim against minority teenagers at Hofstra was newsworthy?  Um, right. Put it this way, Al Gore, a former US Vice President, is one of the most revered icons of the left. He got more popular votes in the 2000 election than George W. Bush. He won the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award. But the rape claim against him was scarcely worth mentioning?

For the record, when the Gore claim finally hit the news last year -- several years after it was first made -- and was quickly buried by the press, I said this: ". . . the way the news media covered the claim against Gore is the way the news media should cover all rape claims." A lot of conservative talk show hosts were quick to malign Gore for political advantage.

In covering the innuendo against Cain arising from two alleged claims from the 1990s, we should be guided by feminist Susan Estrich, who, last year, discussed how we should treat the claim against Al Gore. "[T]he problem is," she said, "we just don't know and there's no way to determine." Then she said this: "I'm the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance. . . . . But I'm also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends [sic] and purposes . . . ruined by a false accusation."

Somehow, I don't think too many people will care if Herman Cain was falsely accused. Just a hunch.

Blowing old allegations into headline news: The sex rumors about Herman Cain, and the ugly spectre of black men as sexual predators

POLITICO reports that back in the 1990s, "at least" two unnamed female employees of the National Restaurant Association, which black GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain headed from 1996-1999, complained to colleagues and senior association officials about alleged inappropriate sexual behavior by Cain involving alleged conversations supposedly "filled" with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, which supposed unspecified conduct allegedly offended the women and forced them to leave their jobs at the trade group. The unnamed women supposedly signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts. The agreements, we are told, included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

POLITICO says it knows the identities of the two women but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

So the uppity black Republican is crucified by innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations, and the women who supposedly were wronged can't be subjected to the well-honed scalpel of cross-examination by those few media types who'd be willing to subject them to it.

In the days ahead, some members of the news media will try to dredge up the more-than-decade-old allegations in the hope of "trying" the claims in the court of last resort, the American media circus. The same media circus, by the way, that gave such a fair "hearing" to the Duke lacrosse boys, the Hofstra defendants and too many others to chronicle. And, yes, that was sarcasm.

In the end, the result of such efforts is as predictable as it will be unsatisfying: it will be "he said/she said," which means, he loses, because when it comes to sex allegations in America, the accusation becomes its own conviction, and it's usually enough to destroy any man, especially a prominent black Republican.

The Cain innuendo raises the spectre of America's shameful habit of stereotyping black men and boys as hyper-sexualized primitives, barely able to control their urges when it comes to women. It was that ugly stereotype that made a white woman's cry of "rape" a death sentence for countless innocent black men and boys in the Old South, and in too many other places (Duluth, most prominently).

Remember the 1897 New York Times piece we talked about earlier this year? It was an unabashed defense of the practice of lynching blacks for the crime of rape. The writer noted that the victims of such lynchings were "generally black negroes of the lowest order" because, he asserted, "the negro is generally the criminal" and "he seems particularly given to this odious crime." What about false claims? Make sure you're sitting down when you read this: "The only ground of objection to this mode of dealing with these criminals is the fear that the innocent might suffer. As the most careful precautions are taken against this result it is not a likely thing lest the wrong man is executed."

Have these attitudes really changed?  Surely the New York Times would never again print such an odious celebration of prejudice against black men, but the unspoken beliefs still bubble just beneath the surface. Can you say "Hofstra"?  As Clarence Thomas said at the circus that masqueraded as his Senate confirmation hearing: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

How should the allegations about Cain be treated?  The way the news media treated the sexual assault allegation against Al Gore. Or, rather, didn't treat it. The news media barefly covered it because it wasn't newsworthy, you say?  But a rape claim against minority teenagers at Hofstra was newsworthy?  Um, right. Put it this way, Al Gore, a former US Vice President, is one of the most revered icons of the left. He got more popular votes in the 2000 election than George W. Bush. He won the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award. But the rape claim against him was scarcely worth mentioning?

For the record, when the Gore claim finally hit the news last year -- several years after it was first made -- and was quickly buried by the press, I said this: ". . . the way the news media covered the claim against Gore is the way the news media should cover all rape claims." A lot of conservative talk show hosts were quick to malign Gore for political advantage.

In covering the innuendo against Cain arising from two alleged claims from the 1990s, we should be guided by feminist Susan Estrich, who, last year, discussed how we should treat the claim against Al Gore. "[T]he problem is," she said, "we just don't know and there's no way to determine." Then she said this: "I'm the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance. . . . . But I'm also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends [sic] and purposes . . . ruined by a false accusation."

Somehow, I don't think too many people will care if Herman Cain was falsely accused. Just a hunch.

La Salle woman charged with false report

A La Salle woman remained in the La Salle County Jail Tuesday on a charge she made a false claim of sexual assault.

Jessica M. Lee, 19, 1020 Second St., Apt. 608, was arrested last week on a warrant for felony disorderly conduct.

Lee allegedly made a bogus report to La Salle police Aug. 29. The charge is punishable by probation or prison. She needs $1,500 cash to make bond.

Link: http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=442955

La Salle woman charged with false report

A La Salle woman remained in the La Salle County Jail Tuesday on a charge she made a false claim of sexual assault.

Jessica M. Lee, 19, 1020 Second St., Apt. 608, was arrested last week on a warrant for felony disorderly conduct.

Lee allegedly made a bogus report to La Salle police Aug. 29. The charge is punishable by probation or prison. She needs $1,500 cash to make bond.

Link: http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=442955

College Administrator to OCR: 'How do I respond to an angry parent who sees the injustice to her son that the college is supposed to believe the alleged victim?'

MUST READING:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/10/28/essay-ocr-guidelines-sexual-assault-hurt-colleges-and-students

College Administrator to OCR: 'How do I respond to an angry parent who sees the injustice to her son that the college is supposed to believe the alleged victim?'

MUST READING:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/10/28/essay-ocr-guidelines-sexual-assault-hurt-colleges-and-students

This is also a men's rights issue . . .

See here.

This is also a men's rights issue . . .

See here.

Theories of the actor

I'm attracted to an approach to sociological thinking that can be described as "actor-centered."  The basic idea is that social phenomena are constituted by the actions of individuals, oriented by their own subjectivities and mental frameworks.  It is recognized, of course, that the subjectivity of the actor doesn't come full-blown into his or her mind at adulthood; rather, we recognize that individuals are "socialized"; their thought processes and mental frameworks are developed through myriad social relationships and institutions. So the actor is a socially constituted individual.

If we take the approach to social explanation that demands that we understand how complex social processes and assemblages supervene on the actions and thoughts of individuals, then it is logical that we would want to develop a theory of the actor.  We would like to have a justifiable set of ideas about how individuals perceive the social world, how they think about their own lives and commitments, and how they move from thought to action.  But we have many alternatives available as we attempt to grapple with this task.

We might begin by asking, what work should a theory of the actor do?  Here are a set of questions that a theory of the actor ought to consider:

1. How does the actor represent the world of action -- the physical and social environment?  Here we need a vocabulary of mental frameworks, representational schemes, stereotypes, and paradigms.
2. How do these schemes become actualized within the actor's mental system? This is the developmental and socialization question.
3. What motivates the actor?  What sorts of things does the actor seek to accomplish through action?
4. Here too there is a developmental question: how are these motives instilled in the actor through a social process of learning?
5. What mental forces lead to action? Here we are considering things like deliberative processes, heuristic reasoning, emotional attachments, habits, and internally realized practices.
6. How do the results of action get incorporated into the actor's mental system?  Here we are thinking about memory, representation of the meanings of outcomes, regret, satisfaction, or happiness.
7. How do the results of past experiences inform the mental processes leading to subsequent actions? Here we are considering the ways that memory and emotional representations of the past may motivate different patterns of action in the future.

Aristotle guides much philosophical thinking on these questions by offering an orderly theory of the practical agent (The Nicomachean Ethics).  His theory is centered on the idea of deliberative rationality, but he leaves a place for the emotions in action as well (to be controlled by the faculty of reason).  Deliberation, in Aristotle's view, amounts to reflecting on one's goals and arranging them into a hierarchy; then choosing actions that permit the achievement of one's highest goals.

Formal rational choice theory provides a set of answers to several of these questions.  Actors have preferences and beliefs; their preferences are well ordered; they assign probabilities and utilities to outcomes (the results of actions); and they choose a given action to maximize the satisfaction of their preferences.

Ethnographic thinkers such as Clifford Geertz or Erving Goffman take a different tack altogether; they give a lot of attention to questions 1 and 2; they provide "thick" descriptions of the motives and meanings of the actors (3); and they indicate a diverse set of answers to question 5.  (Geertz and Goffman are discussed in other posts.)

Other anthropologists have favored a "performative" understanding of agency.  The actor is understood as carrying out a culturally prescribed script in response to stereotyped social settings.  Victor Turner's anthropology is a leading example of this approach to action (Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society).

Mayer Zald recommends the work of Karl Weick on the first question (Sensemaking in Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science)).  Here is how Weick explains sensemaking:

The concept of sensemaking is well named because, literally, it means the making of sense. Active agents construct sensible, sensable events. They "structure the unknown". How they construct what they construct, why, and with what effects are the central questions for people interested in sensemaking.  Investigators who sensemaking define it in quite different ways. Many investigators imply what Starbuck and Milliken make explicit, namely, that sensemaking involves placing stimuli into some kind of framework. The well-known phrase "frame of reference" has traditionally meant a generalized point of view that directs interpretations. (4) (references omitted)

It's worthwhile addressing this topic, because it would appear that we don't yet have a particularly good vocabulary for formulating questions about agency.  As indicated above, Aristotle's theory of the mind has been dominant in western philosophy; and yet it feels as though his approach is just one among many starting points that could have been chosen.  Here is an earlier treatment of this question (link).

I'm reminded by my friends that not all sociologists accept the actor-centered approach.  Some (like Andrew Abbott and Peggy Somers) prefer what they refer to as a "relational" understanding of the basis of social activity.  It is not so much the actor as the action; it is not the internal state of the individual agent so much as the swirl of interactions with others that determine the course of a social activity.  This is part of Abbott's objection to the idea that sociology should aim to uncover social mechanisms (link).

Theories of the actor

I'm attracted to an approach to sociological thinking that can be described as "actor-centered."  The basic idea is that social phenomena are constituted by the actions of individuals, oriented by their own subjectivities and mental frameworks.  It is recognized, of course, that the subjectivity of the actor doesn't come full-blown into his or her mind at adulthood; rather, we recognize that individuals are "socialized"; their thought processes and mental frameworks are developed through myriad social relationships and institutions. So the actor is a socially constituted individual.

If we take the approach to social explanation that demands that we understand how complex social processes and assemblages supervene on the actions and thoughts of individuals, then it is logical that we would want to develop a theory of the actor.  We would like to have a justifiable set of ideas about how individuals perceive the social world, how they think about their own lives and commitments, and how they move from thought to action.  But we have many alternatives available as we attempt to grapple with this task.

We might begin by asking, what work should a theory of the actor do?  Here are a set of questions that a theory of the actor ought to consider:

1. How does the actor represent the world of action -- the physical and social environment?  Here we need a vocabulary of mental frameworks, representational schemes, stereotypes, and paradigms.
2. How do these schemes become actualized within the actor's mental system? This is the developmental and socialization question.
3. What motivates the actor?  What sorts of things does the actor seek to accomplish through action?
4. Here too there is a developmental question: how are these motives instilled in the actor through a social process of learning?
5. What mental forces lead to action? Here we are considering things like deliberative processes, heuristic reasoning, emotional attachments, habits, and internally realized practices.
6. How do the results of action get incorporated into the actor's mental system?  Here we are thinking about memory, representation of the meanings of outcomes, regret, satisfaction, or happiness.
7. How do the results of past experiences inform the mental processes leading to subsequent actions? Here we are considering the ways that memory and emotional representations of the past may motivate different patterns of action in the future.

Aristotle guides much philosophical thinking on these questions by offering an orderly theory of the practical agent (The Nicomachean Ethics).  His theory is centered on the idea of deliberative rationality, but he leaves a place for the emotions in action as well (to be controlled by the faculty of reason).  Deliberation, in Aristotle's view, amounts to reflecting on one's goals and arranging them into a hierarchy; then choosing actions that permit the achievement of one's highest goals.

Formal rational choice theory provides a set of answers to several of these questions.  Actors have preferences and beliefs; their preferences are well ordered; they assign probabilities and utilities to outcomes (the results of actions); and they choose a given action to maximize the satisfaction of their preferences.

Ethnographic thinkers such as Clifford Geertz or Erving Goffman take a different tack altogether; they give a lot of attention to questions 1 and 2; they provide "thick" descriptions of the motives and meanings of the actors (3); and they indicate a diverse set of answers to question 5.  (Geertz and Goffman are discussed in other posts.)

Other anthropologists have favored a "performative" understanding of agency.  The actor is understood as carrying out a culturally prescribed script in response to stereotyped social settings.  Victor Turner's anthropology is a leading example of this approach to action (Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society).

Mayer Zald recommends the work of Karl Weick on the first question (Sensemaking in Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science)).  Here is how Weick explains sensemaking:

The concept of sensemaking is well named because, literally, it means the making of sense. Active agents construct sensible, sensable events. They "structure the unknown". How they construct what they construct, why, and with what effects are the central questions for people interested in sensemaking.  Investigators who sensemaking define it in quite different ways. Many investigators imply what Starbuck and Milliken make explicit, namely, that sensemaking involves placing stimuli into some kind of framework. The well-known phrase "frame of reference" has traditionally meant a generalized point of view that directs interpretations. (4) (references omitted)

It's worthwhile addressing this topic, because it would appear that we don't yet have a particularly good vocabulary for formulating questions about agency.  As indicated above, Aristotle's theory of the mind has been dominant in western philosophy; and yet it feels as though his approach is just one among many starting points that could have been chosen.  Here is an earlier treatment of this question (link).

I'm reminded by my friends that not all sociologists accept the actor-centered approach.  Some (like Andrew Abbott and Peggy Somers) prefer what they refer to as a "relational" understanding of the basis of social activity.  It is not so much the actor as the action; it is not the internal state of the individual agent so much as the swirl of interactions with others that determine the course of a social activity.  This is part of Abbott's objection to the idea that sociology should aim to uncover social mechanisms (link).

Theories of the actor

I'm attracted to an approach to sociological thinking that can be described as "actor-centered."  The basic idea is that social phenomena are constituted by the actions of individuals, oriented by their own subjectivities and mental frameworks.  It is recognized, of course, that the subjectivity of the actor doesn't come full-blown into his or her mind at adulthood; rather, we recognize that individuals are "socialized"; their thought processes and mental frameworks are developed through myriad social relationships and institutions. So the actor is a socially constituted individual.

If we take the approach to social explanation that demands that we understand how complex social processes and assemblages supervene on the actions and thoughts of individuals, then it is logical that we would want to develop a theory of the actor.  We would like to have a justifiable set of ideas about how individuals perceive the social world, how they think about their own lives and commitments, and how they move from thought to action.  But we have many alternatives available as we attempt to grapple with this task.

We might begin by asking, what work should a theory of the actor do?  Here are a set of questions that a theory of the actor ought to consider:

1. How does the actor represent the world of action -- the physical and social environment?  Here we need a vocabulary of mental frameworks, representational schemes, stereotypes, and paradigms.
2. How do these schemes become actualized within the actor's mental system? This is the developmental and socialization question.
3. What motivates the actor?  What sorts of things does the actor seek to accomplish through action?
4. Here too there is a developmental question: how are these motives instilled in the actor through a social process of learning?
5. What mental forces lead to action? Here we are considering things like deliberative processes, heuristic reasoning, emotional attachments, habits, and internally realized practices.
6. How do the results of action get incorporated into the actor's mental system?  Here we are thinking about memory, representation of the meanings of outcomes, regret, satisfaction, or happiness.
7. How do the results of past experiences inform the mental processes leading to subsequent actions? Here we are considering the ways that memory and emotional representations of the past may motivate different patterns of action in the future.

Aristotle guides much philosophical thinking on these questions by offering an orderly theory of the practical agent (The Nicomachean Ethics).  His theory is centered on the idea of deliberative rationality, but he leaves a place for the emotions in action as well (to be controlled by the faculty of reason).  Deliberation, in Aristotle's view, amounts to reflecting on one's goals and arranging them into a hierarchy; then choosing actions that permit the achievement of one's highest goals.

Formal rational choice theory provides a set of answers to several of these questions.  Actors have preferences and beliefs; their preferences are well ordered; they assign probabilities and utilities to outcomes (the results of actions); and they choose a given action to maximize the satisfaction of their preferences.

Ethnographic thinkers such as Clifford Geertz or Erving Goffman take a different tack altogether; they give a lot of attention to questions 1 and 2; they provide "thick" descriptions of the motives and meanings of the actors (3); and they indicate a diverse set of answers to question 5.  (Geertz and Goffman are discussed in other posts.)

Other anthropologists have favored a "performative" understanding of agency.  The actor is understood as carrying out a culturally prescribed script in response to stereotyped social settings.  Victor Turner's anthropology is a leading example of this approach to action (Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society).

Mayer Zald recommends the work of Karl Weick on the first question (Sensemaking in Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science)).  Here is how Weick explains sensemaking:

The concept of sensemaking is well named because, literally, it means the making of sense. Active agents construct sensible, sensable events. They "structure the unknown". How they construct what they construct, why, and with what effects are the central questions for people interested in sensemaking.  Investigators who sensemaking define it in quite different ways. Many investigators imply what Starbuck and Milliken make explicit, namely, that sensemaking involves placing stimuli into some kind of framework. The well-known phrase "frame of reference" has traditionally meant a generalized point of view that directs interpretations. (4) (references omitted)

It's worthwhile addressing this topic, because it would appear that we don't yet have a particularly good vocabulary for formulating questions about agency.  As indicated above, Aristotle's theory of the mind has been dominant in western philosophy; and yet it feels as though his approach is just one among many starting points that could have been chosen.  Here is an earlier treatment of this question (link).

I'm reminded by my friends that not all sociologists accept the actor-centered approach.  Some (like Andrew Abbott and Peggy Somers) prefer what they refer to as a "relational" understanding of the basis of social activity.  It is not so much the actor as the action; it is not the internal state of the individual agent so much as the swirl of interactions with others that determine the course of a social activity.  This is part of Abbott's objection to the idea that sociology should aim to uncover social mechanisms (link).

Slut Walk participant pissed that newspaper had the audacity to run her photo

The Dal Gazette, the student newspaper for Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, sent reporters and photographers to the local Slut Walk event. In its coverage, the paper included the photo to the left, accompanied by this story, which explained the mission of Slut Walk. Among other things the newspaper noted: “A person’s attire or activity is not provocation for sexual violence.”

The story did not identify the woman pictured.

But Emilia Volz, a third-year gender and women's studies student at the University, said the photo was of her. Volz wrote to the student newspaper and said this: "This was quite a surprise for me as NO ONE had asked if it would be ok to publish this picture. I am not mad, at all, I just wanted to bring light to the fact that if anyone else had a photo like that in the paper without express permission they would be quite pissed off. I do not want an apology or anything of the type to be published."

Then Volz proceeded to complain about other aspects of the paper's coverage; specifically, it allegedly quoted someone who was not at the event. At no point in the letter did Volz request a retraction of the photo.

But the newspaper didn't print Volz's letter. Instead it ran an editorial explaining that it is "naive to expect journalists wouldn’t do their job" in covering the events.  And it explained why the editors felt the paper had every right to show the photo."Our Slut Walk article made waves because we had the audacity to take a photograph of one of the protesters who was marching in only her bra."

The editorial continued: "Any event held on public property can be photographed. In a rented building, or a private building–that’s different. If you march down a main street in a bra, the media will take your photo. If you lead a march protesting violence against women, you will get reporters asking tough questions. It’s naive to expect otherwise. Welcome to public life."

Well, the editorial apparently didn't sit well with Volz. Volz took her case to the court of last resort, the Dalhousie Women’s Centre. The Women's Centre sent this over-the-top -- indeed, other-worldly -- notice to their members (FRS's commentary is interspersed):

"It has come to our attention that the Dalhousie Gazette published a photograph of a woman's body without her permission in print and on the Internet.When she objected . . ." [she "objected" by declaring that she wasn't mad about it and was not seeking an apology or anything else] ". . . they refused to take it down [they didn't "refuse" to do anything -- they weren't asked to do anything] and the Editor-in-Chief wrote a victim blaming editorial: ‘Smile you’re at a protest.’ [Read that again: it is "victim-blaming" to show a photograph of a woman who purposefully dressed in a sexualized manner in order to make the point that women should not be raped even when they dress in a sexualized manner? This characterization borders on the pathological]  We believe it’s unethical to distribute pictures of individual’s bodies without consent, that this picture was taken without context and thus defeating the purpose of the event and that the Gazette's Editor-in-Chief is perpetuating the victim blaming culture that the protest was fighting against. [The picture was used in context, it was positioned next to a news report that explained the purposes of the Slut Walk] If you have as much of a beef with this as we do, come by tomorrow and write or sign a letter from 10am to 4pm at the Centre."

Volz also complained to a local news outlet. "Ok, she thinks. I did wear a bra to a protest. So maybe I was asking for this to happen... Wait! Isn’t that the problem that Slut Walk seeks to address? No matter what women wear, they aren’t asking to be objectified, raped, sexually harassed, or used by anybody else as a sexual object to draw attention to a story in a newspaper?"

Wait, wait, wait. I'm lost.

Didn't you purposefully dress in a sexualized manner -- in a very real sense, you objectified yourself -- in order to make the perfectly valid point that women should be permitted to present themselves as sexualized beings without being raped?

I mean, you, and likely others at the Slut Walk, dressed that way specifically to draw attention to the message you were trying to convey, right?  And yet for some reason you are pissed that a newspaper ran a photograph of the body you purposefully sexualized to get your message across? 

Come again? 

News coverage of Slut Walks the world over has shown women with less covering their torsos than you wore, Ms. Volz.

The sex columnist at the Gazette, Hayley Gray, quit in protest of the paper's puported mistreatment of Volz: "[The] message of [Slut Walk] was that, no matter what someone wore, they deserved to be treated with respect and asked for their consent." 

Right, their consent to engage in sexual relations. Ya know, it is not a crime for men and boys to look, or, heaven forbid, even to have an involuntary erection when they do. That doesn't mean they assume she's a piece of meat without a brain, and here's the important point: it doesn't give them license to rape or harass.

And photojournalists covering Slut Walks are going to show some of the things the participants did to get their message across. That's just how it goes.

Gray continues: "So 'If you march down a main street in a bra' I get to snap your photo and not try to ask for consent, doesn't cut it. It actually perpetuates the rape myths and victimizing culture that enraged individuals to create slut walks in the first place."

The misplaced rage in the previous sentence seems to have blinded the author to the fact that it makes no sense. "Rape myths"?  A woman purposefully showed off her body and a newspaper ran a picture of it to make the very point the accompanying news story explained. That has as much to do with "rape myths" as does a ham sandwich. And "victimizing culture"? If the photographer had sneaked in her dorm room and snapped the picture, that would be a "victimizing culture." Not when she intentionally parades down a public thoroughfare exposing her body to make the very point the newspaper got across.

But let's not quibble about this. Let's just have the Women's Centre write the stories, and take the photos, for the newspaper. That way, they can control the message and make sure it's presented "exactly right" -- as they determine what's "exactly right."  And above all else, they can make sure they don't run a photo of someone so attractive that it might actually elicit an involuntary erection in some misogynistic college boy.

The message of Slut Walk -- that women don't ask to be raped by the way they dress -- is one that no rational person can disagree with. But, once again, extremist gender warriors do the cause far more harm than good by coming off as asses.

Source:  http://halifax.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/exclusive/2011/slutwalker-says-student-paper-screwed

Slut Walk participant pissed that newspaper had the audacity to run her photo

The Dal Gazette, the student newspaper for Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, sent reporters and photographers to the local Slut Walk event. In its coverage, the paper included the photo to the left, accompanied by this story, which explained the mission of Slut Walk. Among other things the newspaper noted: “A person’s attire or activity is not provocation for sexual violence.”

The story did not identify the woman pictured.

But Emilia Volz, a third-year gender and women's studies student at the University, said the photo was of her. Volz wrote to the student newspaper and said this: "This was quite a surprise for me as NO ONE had asked if it would be ok to publish this picture. I am not mad, at all, I just wanted to bring light to the fact that if anyone else had a photo like that in the paper without express permission they would be quite pissed off. I do not want an apology or anything of the type to be published."

Then Volz proceeded to complain about other aspects of the paper's coverage; specifically, it allegedly quoted someone who was not at the event. At no point in the letter did Volz request a retraction of the photo.

But the newspaper didn't print Volz's letter. Instead it ran an editorial explaining that it is "naive to expect journalists wouldn’t do their job" in covering the events.  And it explained why the editors felt the paper had every right to show the photo."Our Slut Walk article made waves because we had the audacity to take a photograph of one of the protesters who was marching in only her bra."

The editorial continued: "Any event held on public property can be photographed. In a rented building, or a private building–that’s different. If you march down a main street in a bra, the media will take your photo. If you lead a march protesting violence against women, you will get reporters asking tough questions. It’s naive to expect otherwise. Welcome to public life."

Well, the editorial apparently didn't sit well with Volz. Volz took her case to the court of last resort, the Dalhousie Women’s Centre. The Women's Centre sent this over-the-top -- indeed, other-worldly -- notice to their members (FRS's commentary is interspersed):

"It has come to our attention that the Dalhousie Gazette published a photograph of a woman's body without her permission in print and on the Internet.When she objected . . ." [she "objected" by declaring that she wasn't mad about it and was not seeking an apology or anything else] ". . . they refused to take it down [they didn't "refuse" to do anything -- they weren't asked to do anything] and the Editor-in-Chief wrote a victim blaming editorial: ‘Smile you’re at a protest.’ [Read that again: it is "victim-blaming" to show a photograph of a woman who purposefully dressed in a sexualized manner in order to make the point that women should not be raped even when they dress in a sexualized manner? This characterization borders on the pathological]  We believe it’s unethical to distribute pictures of individual’s bodies without consent, that this picture was taken without context and thus defeating the purpose of the event and that the Gazette's Editor-in-Chief is perpetuating the victim blaming culture that the protest was fighting against. [The picture was used in context, it was positioned next to a news report that explained the purposes of the Slut Walk] If you have as much of a beef with this as we do, come by tomorrow and write or sign a letter from 10am to 4pm at the Centre."

Volz also complained to a local news outlet. "Ok, she thinks. I did wear a bra to a protest. So maybe I was asking for this to happen... Wait! Isn’t that the problem that Slut Walk seeks to address? No matter what women wear, they aren’t asking to be objectified, raped, sexually harassed, or used by anybody else as a sexual object to draw attention to a story in a newspaper?"

Wait, wait, wait. I'm lost.

Didn't you purposefully dress in a sexualized manner -- in a very real sense, you objectified yourself -- in order to make the perfectly valid point that women should be permitted to present themselves as sexualized beings without being raped?

I mean, you, and likely others at the Slut Walk, dressed that way specifically to draw attention to the message you were trying to convey, right?  And yet for some reason you are pissed that a newspaper ran a photograph of the body you purposefully sexualized to get your message across? 

Come again? 

News coverage of Slut Walks the world over has shown women with less covering their torsos than you wore, Ms. Volz.

The sex columnist at the Gazette, Hayley Gray, quit in protest of the paper's puported mistreatment of Volz: "[The] message of [Slut Walk] was that, no matter what someone wore, they deserved to be treated with respect and asked for their consent." 

Right, their consent to engage in sexual relations. Ya know, it is not a crime for men and boys to look, or, heaven forbid, even to have an involuntary erection when they do. That doesn't mean they assume she's a piece of meat without a brain, and here's the important point: it doesn't give them license to rape or harass.

And photojournalists covering Slut Walks are going to show some of the things the participants did to get their message across. That's just how it goes.

Gray continues: "So 'If you march down a main street in a bra' I get to snap your photo and not try to ask for consent, doesn't cut it. It actually perpetuates the rape myths and victimizing culture that enraged individuals to create slut walks in the first place."

The misplaced rage in the previous sentence seems to have blinded the author to the fact that it makes no sense. "Rape myths"?  A woman purposefully showed off her body and a newspaper ran a picture of it to make the very point the accompanying news story explained. That has as much to do with "rape myths" as does a ham sandwich. And "victimizing culture"? If the photographer had sneaked in her dorm room and snapped the picture, that would be a "victimizing culture." Not when she intentionally parades down a public thoroughfare exposing her body to make the very point the newspaper got across.

But let's not quibble about this. Let's just have the Women's Centre write the stories, and take the photos, for the newspaper. That way, they can control the message and make sure it's presented "exactly right" -- as they determine what's "exactly right."  And above all else, they can make sure they don't run a photo of someone so attractive that it might actually elicit an involuntary erection in some misogynistic college boy.

The message of Slut Walk -- that women don't ask to be raped by the way they dress -- is one that no rational person can disagree with. But, once again, extremist gender warriors do the cause far more harm than good by coming off as asses.

Source:  http://halifax.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/exclusive/2011/slutwalker-says-student-paper-screwed

Caleb Warner won't return to UND even after getting expulsion reversed

The story is found here.

Can you blame him for not wanting to go back to that place? Would you return to UND?  I wouldn't.

Caleb and a still-unnamed classmate had consensual sex. She lodged a complaint, and a student relations committee ruled in February 2010 that he violated four sections of UND's code of student life, including “violation of criminal or civil laws.

Caleb was banned from campus for three years.

Caleb asked for a rehearing based on new information; specifically, the fact that she was charged with a crime, not him. The fact that he was the real victim here, not her. (One of the reasons Mr. Warner was expelled was because he supposedly violated criminal or civil laws. But it turns out that the law enforcement agency charged with actually determining if a crime should be charged determined that it was the accuser, not the accused, who violated criminal laws.)

In a letter to Mr. Warner, Robert Boyd, UND's vice president of student and outreach services at the time, rejected the request and based it on a section that requires appeals to be filed within five days of any sanction.

Finally, this month, North Dakota’s provost, Paul A. LeBel, wrote in a formal ruling that although the presumption of innocence applies to the accuser, who will not be extradited for the case to proceed, the arrest warrant reflects the “professional judgment of a trained law-enforcement officer that there was probable cause to doubt” the accusation. The sanctions against Caleb were lifted.

It was a very belated, but correct, decision.  But it can't undo the harm.

Caleb's life has been scarred forever.

His accuser's identity is still inexplicably protected by the news media. She has been charged with a crime; he hasn't.

In UND's sexual assault protocols, it proudly declares: "UND attempts to foster a safe learning and living environment on-campus for all members of the campus community." http://und.edu/student-affairs/dean-of-students/sexual-violation-protocols.cfm

Based on UND's shameful handling of this case, I think what they mean is "all members of the campus community who don't have a penis."  Let's be honest.

Caleb Warner won't return to UND even after getting expulsion reversed

The story is found here.

Can you blame him for not wanting to go back to that place? Would you return to UND?  I wouldn't.

Caleb and a still-unnamed classmate had consensual sex. She lodged a complaint, and a student relations committee ruled in February 2010 that he violated four sections of UND's code of student life, including “violation of criminal or civil laws.

Caleb was banned from campus for three years.

Caleb asked for a rehearing based on new information; specifically, the fact that she was charged with a crime, not him. The fact that he was the real victim here, not her. (One of the reasons Mr. Warner was expelled was because he supposedly violated criminal or civil laws. But it turns out that the law enforcement agency charged with actually determining if a crime should be charged determined that it was the accuser, not the accused, who violated criminal laws.)

In a letter to Mr. Warner, Robert Boyd, UND's vice president of student and outreach services at the time, rejected the request and based it on a section that requires appeals to be filed within five days of any sanction.

Finally, this month, North Dakota’s provost, Paul A. LeBel, wrote in a formal ruling that although the presumption of innocence applies to the accuser, who will not be extradited for the case to proceed, the arrest warrant reflects the “professional judgment of a trained law-enforcement officer that there was probable cause to doubt” the accusation. The sanctions against Caleb were lifted.

It was a very belated, but correct, decision.  But it can't undo the harm.

Caleb's life has been scarred forever.

His accuser's identity is still inexplicably protected by the news media. She has been charged with a crime; he hasn't.

In UND's sexual assault protocols, it proudly declares: "UND attempts to foster a safe learning and living environment on-campus for all members of the campus community." http://und.edu/student-affairs/dean-of-students/sexual-violation-protocols.cfm

Based on UND's shameful handling of this case, I think what they mean is "all members of the campus community who don't have a penis."  Let's be honest.

Heidi Jones: the latest high profile false accuser to be spared jail time

A follow-up on this story, and this one.

Ex-weather gal Heidi Jones sentenced to 350 hours community service at not-for-profit for false report

A little sprain in the forecast didn't stop "cry-rape" weather gal Heidi Jones from limping into Manhattan Supreme Court today to be sentenced for snowing authorities last fall.

Jones, 37 -- wearing a tight gold skirt, a frilly matching sleeveless blouse, and a big black boot-cast on her left foot -- will serve 350 hours of community service at a not-for-profit agency.

The former WABC/Channel 7 meteorologist had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of filing a false police report. She'd claimed that a "Hispanic" pervert in his 30s or 40s had grabbed her from behind as she jogged in Central Park last fall.


Detectives embarked on a lengthy investigation, scouring surveillance video and canvassing for witnesses. Returning empty handed, they questioned Jones again, uncovering inconsistencies as she repeated her account.

It was when she was confronted with the discrepancies that Jones admitted to cops that she fabricated the story as a bid for sympathy.

"I have so much stress at work, with my personal life and with my family," Jones, who also filled in on "Good Morning America," explained to cops.

"I just want to take a moment to express my sincere and profound apology to all who were involved," Jones said in a sentencing statement to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers.

"Most importantly, the police department," she added. "I will work extremely hard to pay back the city and the department through community service," she said.

Jones must continue to undergo psychological counseling, the judge said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/false_weather_report_heidi_jones_kLh3FNAsBZRKwlv1dM8j6O#ixzz1c4Wwu3tx

Heidi Jones: the latest high profile false accuser to be spared jail time

A follow-up on this story, and this one.

Ex-weather gal Heidi Jones sentenced to 350 hours community service at not-for-profit for false report

A little sprain in the forecast didn't stop "cry-rape" weather gal Heidi Jones from limping into Manhattan Supreme Court today to be sentenced for snowing authorities last fall.

Jones, 37 -- wearing a tight gold skirt, a frilly matching sleeveless blouse, and a big black boot-cast on her left foot -- will serve 350 hours of community service at a not-for-profit agency.

The former WABC/Channel 7 meteorologist had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of filing a false police report. She'd claimed that a "Hispanic" pervert in his 30s or 40s had grabbed her from behind as she jogged in Central Park last fall.


Detectives embarked on a lengthy investigation, scouring surveillance video and canvassing for witnesses. Returning empty handed, they questioned Jones again, uncovering inconsistencies as she repeated her account.

It was when she was confronted with the discrepancies that Jones admitted to cops that she fabricated the story as a bid for sympathy.

"I have so much stress at work, with my personal life and with my family," Jones, who also filled in on "Good Morning America," explained to cops.

"I just want to take a moment to express my sincere and profound apology to all who were involved," Jones said in a sentencing statement to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers.

"Most importantly, the police department," she added. "I will work extremely hard to pay back the city and the department through community service," she said.

Jones must continue to undergo psychological counseling, the judge said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/false_weather_report_heidi_jones_kLh3FNAsBZRKwlv1dM8j6O#ixzz1c4Wwu3tx

Teen recants Mtn. View sexual assault story

Mountain View police said that a 16-year-old girl who told officers she had been sexually assaulted in Whisman Park in late September has recanted her story.

On Oct. 14, police spokeswoman Liz Wylie issued a press release reporting that the girl had been groped by two men in a bathroom in Whisman Park sometime between 6 and 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 26, 27 or 28.

Wylie said on Oct. 21 that the girl had "confirmed to us that no assault of any kind occurred."

"Due to her status as a juvenile, I will not be releasing any more information what-so-ever as to how we know it didn't happen, what she said to us, etc.," Wylie wrote in a press release, sent out at about 3:30 p.m. "In the same way that people sometimes legitimately delay reporting very real crimes for various personal reasons, sometimes people report crimes that did not at all happen for various personal reasons."

Wylie added, "The important thing is that there (are) not two men out there attacking women."

Link: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=22974

Teen recants Mtn. View sexual assault story

Mountain View police said that a 16-year-old girl who told officers she had been sexually assaulted in Whisman Park in late September has recanted her story.

On Oct. 14, police spokeswoman Liz Wylie issued a press release reporting that the girl had been groped by two men in a bathroom in Whisman Park sometime between 6 and 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 26, 27 or 28.

Wylie said on Oct. 21 that the girl had "confirmed to us that no assault of any kind occurred."

"Due to her status as a juvenile, I will not be releasing any more information what-so-ever as to how we know it didn't happen, what she said to us, etc.," Wylie wrote in a press release, sent out at about 3:30 p.m. "In the same way that people sometimes legitimately delay reporting very real crimes for various personal reasons, sometimes people report crimes that did not at all happen for various personal reasons."

Wylie added, "The important thing is that there (are) not two men out there attacking women."

Link: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=22974

Web post applauding penile mutilation must be removed

Our friend Paul Elam wants Nicole Fabian-Weber's vile pro-mutilation post removed from the Web. Paul asks that we communicate with the blog owner to express our displeasure.  Here is the contact information: http://thestir.cafemom.com/contact

And here is my note:

In an era when we tell our sons they must never engage in gendered violence, Nicole Fabian-Weber (“Wife Cuts Off Husband’s Penis & Chucks It in the River,” 10/18/11) celebrates sexual mutilation when the genders are reversed. Your Web site has done a grave disservice to our children by running that piece, and you should pull it now.

Without even a hint of due process, without a scrap of evidence being considered by a trier of fact, Ms. Fabian-Weber arrogates to all women the right to exact the most gruesome vigilante “justice” on any “member” of any member of the opposite sex.

By what rationale is such a despicable display of gender get-evenism acceptable to your Web site?

We can tell our sons that gendered violence is unacceptable until we’re blue in the face, but when they see that it’s OK when mommy does it, they won’t bother drawing those fine-line, politically correct distinctions you seem to take for granted, and they’ll assume it must be OK when daddy does it, too.

Is that the kind of shameful example you want to set?

Sincerely,

Pierce Harlan

Web post applauding penile mutilation must be removed

Our friend Paul Elam wants Nicole Fabian-Weber's vile pro-mutilation post removed from the Web. Paul asks that we communicate with the blog owner to express our displeasure.  Here is the contact information: http://thestir.cafemom.com/contact

And here is my note:

In an era when we tell our sons they must never engage in gendered violence, Nicole Fabian-Weber (“Wife Cuts Off Husband’s Penis & Chucks It in the River,” 10/18/11) celebrates sexual mutilation when the genders are reversed. Your Web site has done a grave disservice to our children by running that piece, and you should pull it now.

Without even a hint of due process, without a scrap of evidence being considered by a trier of fact, Ms. Fabian-Weber arrogates to all women the right to exact the most gruesome vigilante “justice” on any “member” of any member of the opposite sex.

By what rationale is such a despicable display of gender get-evenism acceptable to your Web site?

We can tell our sons that gendered violence is unacceptable until we’re blue in the face, but when they see that it’s OK when mommy does it, they won’t bother drawing those fine-line, politically correct distinctions you seem to take for granted, and they’ll assume it must be OK when daddy does it, too.

Is that the kind of shameful example you want to set?

Sincerely,

Pierce Harlan

The college student who concocted a terrible rape lie to highlight the problems of safety for women

We dip into the archives today to highlight one of the most peculiar false rape allegations on record.

In 1990, Mariam Kashani, a 19-year-old sophomore and feminist activist at George Washington University, decided she needed to "highlight the problems of safety for women" in a very prominent way, so what do you suppose she did?

She concocted an elaborate false rape hoax, that's what.

Here's how it happened. A reporter for the student newspaper had heard rumors of an alleged rape that supposedly occurred early in the morning of October 31, near Strong Hall, a large dormitory. For reasons lost to the mist of history, the reporter tried to confirm the rape with Margery Mazie, a sophomore who is co-founder of a feminist organization on campus called Women's Issues Now. Mazie directed the reporter to Kashani, who told him she had actually met the victim, a white woman, through a friend at the D.C. Rape Crisis Center.

Kashani told the reporter that the victim had been raped by two black men "with particularly bad body odor."  When the rapists had finished their foul deed, they supposedly laughed, and one of them purportedly told the "victim" that she was "pretty good for a white girl."

A fake policeman who identified himself as "Mark Smith" backed up the story to the reporter by phone. "Mr. Smith" said he had taken the victim to D.C. General Hospital and had filed a report on the rape. Neither the reporter nor his editors ever reached "Mr. Smith" at the Police Department; Ms. Kashani always offered to personally call the officer's beeper, and he called them back.

The reporter worked on the story for a month before publishing it on December 6.

Then the truth came out. Kashani called campus police and confessed: there had been no rape. The New York Times described the reaction: "As news of the fabrication spread around campus, the fear that had rolled over the school like a thick fog [after the alleged rape was reported] was blown away by clear, cold rage."

Kashani offered an apology. "My goal from the beginning was to try to call attention to what I perceived to be a serious safety concern for women," Kashani said in the letter. "From the bottom of my heart, I deeply regret all that has occurred."

What better way to highlight the fact that women are sometimes raped than by citing an alleged incident where no rape occurred?  Kashani wasn't a false accuser as much as she was a herald for the sexual grievance industry that would soon descend on college campuses across America and fabricate a campus rape crisis. It's The Music Man all over again, and only Professor Harold Hill can save River City from the dire dilemma it found itself in -- a dilemma that Professor Hill concocted out of whole cloth.

Kashani said the rape she described "did, in fact, occur but did not take place at the time and location as reported."

Denise Snyder of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center, for one, wasn't happy. Sh said that the "incredible fabrication" served to reinforce the "myth" that women lie about rape.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. You see, false rape claim after false rape claim after false rape claim is decried -- because, we are told, every false report only serves to reinforce the "myth" that women lie about rape. That's kind of like saying that reporting on all those murders in Detroit only serves to reinforce the myth that Detroit has a crime problem.

The racial element of the lie was especially problematic. Ronnie Thaxton, vice president of the Black People's Union on campus, said: "I was outraged. I think it was just another attempt by some white people to discredit young black males in this country."  Rozelle Moore, a black senior at the university, said: "She definitely owes the campus an apology, and she owes an apology to black males."

The university president said that "our black students, faculty, staff and neighbors" were "special victims of the hoax," adding, "They were stereotyped in a provocative and unfair way."

Columnist Suzanne Fields said there were plenty of goats in the story: the false accuser; the reporter; blacks--and especially black men; and all women.  The one group she left out, because she obviously didn't think of them as a group deserving of protection, was all men -- you know, the group that has a monopoly on being falsely accused accused of rape.  But why bother bringing that up when you can use a crime directed at men as an excuse to claim it victimizes women?

A generic rape lie told about any male, black or white, taps into pretty awful stereotypes -- about gender. There is an insidious, but potent, strain of misandry bubbling just beneath the surface in our culture that automatically credits every rape accusation as true and that regards every male above a certain age as a potential predator.

But the racial animus present when white women falsely accuse black men of rape is particularly repugnant because it taps into a time, not that long ago, of the hanging trees in the Deep South, when a white woman needed only to whisper "rape" and the very word became a death sentence for an innocent man or boy. 

Sadly, the lessons about race from that shameful chapter of our nation's history are rarely remembered. The lessons about gender from false rape claims uttered since the Book of Genesis are rarely acknowledged. We will continue to remind readers of both.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/12/us/false-rape-report-upsetting-campus.html?src=pm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19901218&id=rX80AAAAIBAJ&sjid=yuQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1190,1780321

http://solargeneral.com/jeffs-archive/hate-crimes/crying-wolf-hate-crime-hoaxes-in-america-book-review/

The college student who concocted a terrible rape lie to highlight the problems of safety for women

We dip into the archives today to highlight one of the most peculiar false rape allegations on record.

In 1990, Mariam Kashani, a 19-year-old sophomore and feminist activist at George Washington University, decided she needed to "highlight the problems of safety for women" in a very prominent way, so what do you suppose she did?

She concocted an elaborate false rape hoax, that's what.

Here's how it happened. A reporter for the student newspaper had heard rumors of an alleged rape that supposedly occurred early in the morning of October 31, near Strong Hall, a large dormitory. For reasons lost to the mist of history, the reporter tried to confirm the rape with Margery Mazie, a sophomore who is co-founder of a feminist organization on campus called Women's Issues Now. Mazie directed the reporter to Kashani, who told him she had actually met the victim, a white woman, through a friend at the D.C. Rape Crisis Center.

Kashani told the reporter that the victim had been raped by two black men "with particularly bad body odor."  When the rapists had finished their foul deed, they supposedly laughed, and one of them purportedly told the "victim" that she was "pretty good for a white girl."

A fake policeman who identified himself as "Mark Smith" backed up the story to the reporter by phone. "Mr. Smith" said he had taken the victim to D.C. General Hospital and had filed a report on the rape. Neither the reporter nor his editors ever reached "Mr. Smith" at the Police Department; Ms. Kashani always offered to personally call the officer's beeper, and he called them back.

The reporter worked on the story for a month before publishing it on December 6.

Then the truth came out. Kashani called campus police and confessed: there had been no rape. The New York Times described the reaction: "As news of the fabrication spread around campus, the fear that had rolled over the school like a thick fog [after the alleged rape was reported] was blown away by clear, cold rage."

Kashani offered an apology. "My goal from the beginning was to try to call attention to what I perceived to be a serious safety concern for women," Kashani said in the letter. "From the bottom of my heart, I deeply regret all that has occurred."

What better way to highlight the fact that women are sometimes raped than by citing an alleged incident where no rape occurred?  Kashani wasn't a false accuser as much as she was a herald for the sexual grievance industry that would soon descend on college campuses across America and fabricate a campus rape crisis. It's The Music Man all over again, and only Professor Harold Hill can save River City from the dire dilemma it found itself in -- a dilemma that Professor Hill concocted out of whole cloth.

Kashani said the rape she described "did, in fact, occur but did not take place at the time and location as reported."

Denise Snyder of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center, for one, wasn't happy. Sh said that the "incredible fabrication" served to reinforce the "myth" that women lie about rape.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. You see, false rape claim after false rape claim after false rape claim is decried -- because, we are told, every false report only serves to reinforce the "myth" that women lie about rape. That's kind of like saying that reporting on all those murders in Detroit only serves to reinforce the myth that Detroit has a crime problem.

The racial element of the lie was especially problematic. Ronnie Thaxton, vice president of the Black People's Union on campus, said: "I was outraged. I think it was just another attempt by some white people to discredit young black males in this country."  Rozelle Moore, a black senior at the university, said: "She definitely owes the campus an apology, and she owes an apology to black males."

The university president said that "our black students, faculty, staff and neighbors" were "special victims of the hoax," adding, "They were stereotyped in a provocative and unfair way."

Columnist Suzanne Fields said there were plenty of goats in the story: the false accuser; the reporter; blacks--and especially black men; and all women.  The one group she left out, because she obviously didn't think of them as a group deserving of protection, was all men -- you know, the group that has a monopoly on being falsely accused accused of rape.  But why bother bringing that up when you can use a crime directed at men as an excuse to claim it victimizes women?

A generic rape lie told about any male, black or white, taps into pretty awful stereotypes -- about gender. There is an insidious, but potent, strain of misandry bubbling just beneath the surface in our culture that automatically credits every rape accusation as true and that regards every male above a certain age as a potential predator.

But the racial animus present when white women falsely accuse black men of rape is particularly repugnant because it taps into a time, not that long ago, of the hanging trees in the Deep South, when a white woman needed only to whisper "rape" and the very word became a death sentence for an innocent man or boy. 

Sadly, the lessons about race from that shameful chapter of our nation's history are rarely remembered. The lessons about gender from false rape claims uttered since the Book of Genesis are rarely acknowledged. We will continue to remind readers of both.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/12/us/false-rape-report-upsetting-campus.html?src=pm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19901218&id=rX80AAAAIBAJ&sjid=yuQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1190,1780321

http://solargeneral.com/jeffs-archive/hate-crimes/crying-wolf-hate-crime-hoaxes-in-america-book-review/

Occupy Baltimore's 'Sexual Offense Policy' Underscores Loopy Excesses of Far Left Gender Politics

The persons who speak out the most on sexual assault issues are, ironically, among the most extreme and irrational voices on the subject. Not surprisingly, many are allied with the "Occupy" movements. I've highlighted pertinent portions of Occupy Baltimore's "Sexual Offense Policy," which illustrates the extremism, and which would be laughable if these people weren't serious about it:

Occupy Baltimore Sexual Offense Policy

Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted commentary or physical contact. It is the victim's prerogative to classify any action as sexual harassment, and to decide whether or not the harasser be ejected from Occupy Baltimore. If the victim chooses to enforce the ejection policy, the harasser will be ordered not to return until the Safer Spaces Committee in conjunction with the Mediator’s Committee has reviewed the incident on the following day.

Instances of sexual abuse and assault will be handled according to the expressed desires of the victim. The Security and Medical teams are equipped with a list of resources, including contact information for the police, hospitals, sexual assault hotlines, and women's shelters. In these instances, #Occupy Baltimore welcomes the involvement of the Baltimore City Police and encourages victims to report crimes. We also recognize that the U.S. Justice System is flawed, especially when it comes to cases of sexual assault. If for any reason the victim feels uncomfortable with police involvement, their wishes will be respected.

Anyone reporting sexual assault, with or without police involvement, will have the support of the Occupy Baltimore community. This includes but is not limited to medical assistance, transportation, protection, investigation, mediation and conflict resolution, and emotional support and counseling.

Source: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2011/10/occupy_baltimore_revises_sexua.html

Occupy Baltimore's 'Sexual Offense Policy' Underscores Loopy Excesses of Far Left Gender Politics

The persons who speak out the most on sexual assault issues are, ironically, among the most extreme and irrational voices on the subject. Not surprisingly, many are allied with the "Occupy" movements. I've highlighted pertinent portions of Occupy Baltimore's "Sexual Offense Policy," which illustrates the extremism, and which would be laughable if these people weren't serious about it:

Occupy Baltimore Sexual Offense Policy

Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted commentary or physical contact. It is the victim's prerogative to classify any action as sexual harassment, and to decide whether or not the harasser be ejected from Occupy Baltimore. If the victim chooses to enforce the ejection policy, the harasser will be ordered not to return until the Safer Spaces Committee in conjunction with the Mediator’s Committee has reviewed the incident on the following day.

Instances of sexual abuse and assault will be handled according to the expressed desires of the victim. The Security and Medical teams are equipped with a list of resources, including contact information for the police, hospitals, sexual assault hotlines, and women's shelters. In these instances, #Occupy Baltimore welcomes the involvement of the Baltimore City Police and encourages victims to report crimes. We also recognize that the U.S. Justice System is flawed, especially when it comes to cases of sexual assault. If for any reason the victim feels uncomfortable with police involvement, their wishes will be respected.

Anyone reporting sexual assault, with or without police involvement, will have the support of the Occupy Baltimore community. This includes but is not limited to medical assistance, transportation, protection, investigation, mediation and conflict resolution, and emotional support and counseling.

Source: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2011/10/occupy_baltimore_revises_sexua.html

How can justice be causal?

Is social justice an empirical characteristic of a set of social arrangements? And can social justice be a causal factor in processes of social change or social stability?

Before justice could be considered an empirical feature of a set of social arrangements, we would need to have a more specific understanding of what we mean by the term. And we would need to be able to "operationalize" this complex concept in order to be able to apply it to different social arrangements. But neither of these tasks is insurmountable; certainly not more so than defining and applying the ideas of fascism, liberal democracy, or welfare state to specific societies.

So let's begin with a simple, applicable definition of justice. Let's focus on just three dimensions of a society's functioning: distribution of access to society's wealth; the degree of abuse of power and its contrary, reliable legal protections of the person; and the extent of individual freedoms. Injustice involves --

• exploitation and inequality
• unwarranted coercion by the state or private organizations
• the abuse of people's freedoms.

A society is more just when it involves less of any of these features. And each of these dimensions seems measurable.

But immediately a problem arises. Each of these features requires a key normative judgement. Exploitation is the unfair division of the fruits of productive activity among the participants. The qualifier "unwarranted" requires that we supply a normative theory of the state. And "abuse" of freedom isn't simply restriction on freedom; it is the unjustified or unequal restriction on freedom. So in order to measure any of these characteristics in a particular social context it isn't enough to know who gets what or who does what to whom; we need a background set of normative ideas that allow us to judge which kinds of treatment and inequality count as exploitation, coercion, or the abuse of freedom.

This is where Amartya Sen's ideas about capabilities, realizations, and freedoms are practical and useful. We might substitute "capabilities realization deficit" for exploitation. Here we might argue that a society that leaves a significant portion of its population in material conditions where they cannot fulfill most of their basic human capabilities is for that reason unjust. We might measure the gap in human development between the top quintile and the bottom quintile as an estimate of the degree of exploitation that is prevalent in a given society. We may not know in detail how the system of distribution works, but the severity of the gap gives reason to believe that a portion of the society is being treated unfairly.  The Human Development Index provides a basis for beginning to assess different countries along these lines (link).

Second, we might measure coercion and legality by the estimating the degree to which a society has effectively implemented a working system of law that is applied equally. The World Bank has made some efforts in this direction through its Worldwide Governance Indicators (link; working paper here).  This gives us an empirical measure of the degree of lawlessness and unchecked state power that exists in various societies.

We might measure freedoms by aggregating observable features of democratic participation in various societies.  The Economist has constructed a Democracy Index that was first implemented in 2006 (link). This gives us an empirical way of assessing the rough degree of involvement citizens can have in public decision-making; or in other words, it is a measure of the degree to which it is possible for citizens to exercise their freedoms in a public space.

So we might imagine a "justice index" for a society that aggregates measures like these into an overall assessment of the degree of justice the society currently demonstrates.  It would then be interesting to see how societies differ in this measure, and how other important social characteristics may be correlated with this measure.  I haven't done this experiment, but here's what we might expect: higher injustice ratings correspond to greater likelihood of social conflict, lower productivity, and lower community and civic engagement.

What mechanisms might be hypothesized that would originate in these core aspects of a society's justice profile and its various outcomes?  Here we can identify a couple of factors that would support a causal interpretation.  For example, absolute or relative deprivation can cause people to rebel as they struggle to create social changes that protect their interests.  Further, as Barrington Moore demonstrated in Injustice, the conviction that basic social arrangements are unfair can also move people to activism and resistance -- as we seem to be seeing in the Occupy Wall Street movement.  These factors derive from the distributive arrangements of a society: injustice can provoke resistance.  Similar statements can be made about state violence and lawlessness. We have seen in Libya, Syria, and Morocco that state violence against protesters can actually have the effect of strengthening and broadening resistance.

So these aspects of injustice can have effects on mobilization and resistance by a population. Are there other effects that injustice can have?  As noted earlier (link), Pickett and Wilkinson argue in The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger that inequalities of income have surprisingly strong associations with a variety of social ills.  This could be developed into an argument that social justice and injustice lead to behaviors that either promote or undermine social welfare.

Finally, it seems plausible to imagine that the intangibles that accompany a harmonious society -- a population of people who generally feel that they are fairly treated by their basic institutions and their fellow citizens -- will lead to a variety of other social goods, including cooperation, civic engagement, and economic productivity.  Conversely, it is plausible to suppose that a dis-harmonious society would give rise to the negatives of these qualities: less cooperation, less civic involvement, and less economic productivity.

So two things seem true.  First, it does seem possible to "measure" injustice (supported, of course, by a normative theory of why various kinds of inequality are illegitimate).  And second, it does seem plausible that the features of a society that constitute its injustice may also have causal consequences for social unrest, social wellbeing, and social cooperation.  And these are certainly significant social consequences.

(Perhaps there is an analogous set of questions at the individual level: Is "virtue" a specific empirical characteristic of a person's character? And can virtue be a causal factor in the individual's life outcomes and level of happiness?)