Online users
???: Message???: Message  

More honest lefties (believe it or not) from HARVARD, of all places - four lesbo femmies yanking the veil off of academia's Title IX debacle:
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

10/07/2019, 18:32:13

Author Profile Mail author Edit

'The Four Horsewomen' of judicial fairness - WND

Lt. Col. James Zumwalt
7-8 minutes

In old Western movies, just as the good guys were losing to the bad, a far-away bugle sounded, followed by the cavalry riding to the rescue. In today's politically charged climate of sexual abuse allegations by women against men, we see an environment lacking a level playing field as, all too often, the immediate perception of good and bad favors women. But, alas, once again, a far-away bugle is heard: this cavalry unit – surprisingly all female and originating from a most unexpected source – rides to the rescue to help level that playing field.

This cavalry unit consists of four feminist professors from a liberal law school who share a basic logic, the simplicity of which seems lost upon those embracing political correctness as the new standard. As such, we now see a #MeToo movement that disturbingly over-compensates on behalf of female accusers who, in all fairness, have historically feared going public with their sexual abuse claims. Unfortunately for men, however, such accusers today are given a presumption of truth.

This presumption is similar to that in divorce cases where child custody issues benefited women. For many years, judges favored awarding custody to the mother over the father, all else being equal. That presumption no longer exists as fathers today are just as likely as mothers to obtain custody.

But in custody cases, the pendulum's swing from favoring the mother to a more centrist position evolved gradually, avoiding a radical adjustment over-compensating for past historical transgressions. The swing never gave rise to a "father first" presumption. However, with the virtual overnight growth of the #MeToo movement, the swing has been very radical.

We saw the movement in full swing during the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a matter of weeks, liberals went from reluctantly giving a favorable presumption to women claiming sexual abuse against a major Democratic Party contributor, Harvey Weinstein, to zealously giving it to women alleging sexual abuse against conservative Judge Kavanaugh.

Perhaps no single person epitomized the true unfairness of this radical swing than Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii. She professed all women making such allegations should be believed. Interestingly, this outrageous due-process-be-damned statement stood in stark contrast to Hirono's 1992 position when her mentor, former Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye, was accused of sexual abuse by nine women. Back then, Hirono took Inouye's side, saying nothing.

As a far-left political outfielder, Hirono apparently is blessed with an amazing ability to know when someone is lying or not. Her obtuse logic is simple: Truth-tellers share her same viewpoint; liars do not. Kavanaugh's contrary view about abortion caused her to claim he was not to be trusted. Thus, Hirono had two good reasons for believing Christine Blasey Ford, a key Kavanaugh accuser: She was female and Kavanaugh opposed abortion. As further evidence of her unscrupulous logic, Hirono refused to recognize a basic right under the US Constitution (which she took an oath to support and defend). She was unwilling to admit Kavanaugh was even entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As noted in recent U.S. Supreme Court filings in an unrelated case, "The presumption of innocence is deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition, such that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

This pro-accuser presumption mindset marred the Kavanaugh hearings. Such unfairness has been witnessed on another level by a concerned band of Harvard Law School female professors.

The women – Janet Halley, Jeannie Suk Gersen, Elizabeth Bartholet and Nancy Gertner – have told alarming truths about how, on college campuses, Title IX courts' mentality of guilty-until-proven-innocent subverts the accused's right of due process.

Title IX is a comprehensive 1972 federal law, applicable to educational institutions receiving federal assistance. It sought to remove "many barriers that once prevented people, on the basis of sex, from participating in educational opportunities and careers of their choice." While some interpret the law as applicable to women and sports, it also protects against "sex-based discrimination."

Like the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" warning of difficult times ahead, Harvard's "Four Horsewomen" calvary unit warns about sexual assault tribunals "so unfair as to be truly shocking." These women jointly authored the document "Fairness for All Students Under Title IX" – triggered by a 2014 open letter, signed by 28 members of Harvard's law school faculty, criticizing their institution's updated sexual assault policy as being "inconsistent with some of the most basic principles we teach" and doing "more harm than good." The four came armed with credibility, both as feminists and legal scholars.

The group collectively became aware of college sexual abuse cases where "the guilt or innocence of the accused was a matter of indifference." Activists seeking to combat sexual violence resorted to extreme measures, justified by their frustration over an ongoing harm endured for decades without remedy. For activists, those siding with the accused, even if innocent, committed an unforgivable sin. But such activists unfairly tipped the playing field by managing to redefine rape, even if consensual, allowing the accuser's feelings, rather than material fact, dictate the act itself. Males believing they were entering a consensual act ran the risk of later being accused of rape should their partner, for whatever reason, feel violated. Thus, the cloud of rape followed a male around, leaving his female partner free to call it that at her wont.

Additionally, Title IX has put into place a system denying basic due process to accused students not given "access to the complaint, the evidence, the identities of the witnesses, or the investigative report, and … (forbidding) them from questioning complainants or witnesses." Add a confession by torture to the mix and one envisions a miscarriage of justice as bad as the 13th century's Inquisition.

Recently, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris claimed Kavanaugh "must be impeached" after an uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct resurfaced. Harris suggests too many allegations of abuse have been raised – a claim coming from one who, as a prosecutor, allegedly and wrongly hid exculpatory evidence from numerous defense attorneys. Such a suggestion blindly ignores that several claims were later withdrawn by false accusers. Even accuser Ford's claims were doubted by her own father. Meanwhile, Ford's feminist attorney made clear her motivation was to taint Kavanaugh's name with "an asterisk" before he "takes a scalpel to" Roe vs Wade.

Sadly, rather than extracting wisdom from Harvard's Four Horsewomen, Sen. Harris opts to be a horse's rear end.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message