feb 26, 2015

for those of you that missed it:

dakotah reviewed where we are with creating a dramatic stimulus to ignite further htt9 deliberation

we read this article together
Hoff, Rape Culture is a ‘Panic Where Paranoia, Censorship, and False Accusations Flourish’

fern sends this email to all to put the article in context:

This article may be a useful corrective. Of course, we should not “panic” and we should strive to give both he accuser and the accused a fair trial. But we can’t make the problem of assault go away as easily as the author would like. In particular, I believe she is wrong t cast so much doubt upon the statistical surveys. Her unwonted skepticism is shown pretty clearly in the following paragraph:
” The one-in-five number is derived from surveys where biased samples of respondents are asked an artful combination of straightforward and leading questions, reminiscent of the conclusory interviews behind the daycare agitation. A much-cited CDC study, for example, first tells respondents: “Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.” Then it asks: “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you.” (Emphasis mine.) The CDC counted all such sexual encounters as rapes.”

I agree with the CDC. In a situation in which the alleged victim is “drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to consent” and the alleged victimizer has vaginal sex with her (or the equivalent for a male victim), it IS rape. Rape, by definition , is penetration in the absence of consent. A victim who is “unable to consent” has been raped.
Let’s be fair but let’s not deny the gravity of the problem.

without arguing its merits we took as possibility that the current feminist prosecutorial front has a feel to it not unlike the front of the wave of unjust prosecutions that characterized the hysteria of the 1990’s over child abuse in day care centers.

we watched together an episode of 60 Minutes from the 90’s articulating for america the injustice done to Bill and Kathy Swan.

Here is the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Swan v. Washington (Peterson) refusing to consider the confrontation issue.

The Supreme Court denied my petition for certiorari, 1994.

we talked about the confrontation clause of our constitution and our constitutional right not to be put at risk of conviction by a jury of our peers without first having been faced with the accusation we are called upon to defend without first being faced by our accuser, sworn before our jury.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

we reviewed Raleigh’s Case summary, who first articulated the fundamental confrontation right.

you listened to the story of ‘confrontation’ as a constitutional right

and of its demise and possible resurrection.

we reviewed the case of Clark v. Ohio, to be argued in the Supreme Court on monday. fern and i have filed an Nesson’s amicus clark v. ohio.

we spoke about a justiciable issue as an essential element of fair trial.

we demonstrated Ellsberg’s Paradox and distinguished uncertainty from risk.

we spoke about rhetorical poker, the importance of getting agreement on a premise as a starting point, which leads me to this rawls from journal august 2011.

we spoke of the extension school class as a bucking bronco.

we watched rebecca speak of teaching with me in second life

francesca and mike to take charge. please fill out the doodle to find common meeting times with others outside of class. we will start our seminar this week promptly at 5pm (maybe). bring charged laptops.

i will tweet about #clarkvohio and tell you all about the argument upon our return.

c&f