Title IX roundup


  • In re the whole Title IX path, the hysteria about any perceived wrongs, the ratcheting up:

    This seems to me to be a classic “prevalence induced concept change” problem.


    “Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done.”

    • Title IX is a weapon to bludgeon those who do not conform to groupthink.

      Ms. Kellogg and her peers should remember that as they bask in the moment of self appointed righteousness, that their names will be emblazoned on any near term google searches.
      A potential employer, even an employer who for what ever reason dislikes Kavanaugh, must take notice that this future employee just might see fit to weaponize workplace discrimination claims.
      It would be much easier to justify never hiring in the first place, than to attempt to fire once she proves that she will continue to be a loose cannon in the workplace.

      Boys and girls who cry wolf must be shown the consequences.

  • “It would be pretty terrifying for any survivor or any person to walk into a building on campus and see someone who has been alleged of a very serious crime.”

    So I guess that Mumia Abu-Jamal won’t be invited to give any more recorded speeches.

  • Since when has someone alleging something been conflated with someone proving something?

    • @cecil – That’s also exactly what the Dems tried to do with Ford-Blasey and Kavanaugh. Their entire “believe women” theme means that we are to believe any woman’s accusations, even if there is no corroborating evidence.