Cynthia did an exceptional job detailing what this case was about. In these cases media often report the prosecutor's talking points as opposed to the details of the case. Media tends to tell us what to think as opposed to give us the details so that we can make our own mind up. It was refreshing reporting. My only disappointment with the case is that there was no consequence for the accuser and no answer as to why the prosecutor wasted tax dollars with this case. The evidence the prosecutor brought supported the defendant. The injustice Mr Khan has experienced is unacceptable.

I told her so on Twitter (such an important thing she did).

Here's a guy who came from Afghanistan and has seen and had horrors touch his life that many or most of us probably couldn't imagine. The evidence seems to strongly contradict the accusation. How horrible that he's being put through this -- and will be put through this some more, with the Yale Title IX kangaroo court.

I don't find it strange that someone might let someone into their room if they were afraid of them... appeasement is a strategy often used by the fearful. Not saying it applies in this case, just saying it gets used.

That said, if it were up to me and an accusation came up, I'd suspend the kid until the results of the trial. If he was found guilty I'd expel him.If found innocent let him back in BUT offer the option to the accuser to take a leave of absence until he graduated.

As for consequences for false accusers, I think that would need to be its own trial.

IE unless someone is formally pressing charges, I would not act for any crime.

Nicole says, "I don't find it strange that someone might let someone into their room if they were afraid of them... appeasement is a strategy often used by the fearful."

Nicole's comment is the very kind of "trauma informed" nonsense that is used to slowly twist facts and common-sense further and further until an innocent person can be portrayed as a rapist.

One extreme and unlikely possibility is lined up after another until an innocent person is framed as an evil genius. It's one the worst things a group of people can do to another person.

What about the alcohol abuse, by both? Doesn't Yale respond to alcohol abuse in any way? Both students should have mandatory education in alcohol abuse, paid for by them. Some of these people will be alcoholics, and they ought to learn early the commonality of alcohol and regretted incidents.

"What about the alcohol abuse, by both?"

Doesn't matter in the current climate on campus. All the responsibility is on the male to "know" that a woman is even the slightest bit intoxicated, without having to ask, no matter how well she holds her licqour, or how intoxicated he may be. Cuz, you know, patriarchy and male privilege.

I'm curious...if the police had in hand the information about the time swipes, AND the video of them walking in which she is walking on her own (showing that contrary to her her claim she was intoxicated), this to me shows that the accuser was being (ahem) less than forthcoming in her narrative. Was that ever addressed in the police investigation? if so, the DA STILL decided to move forward? Hmmm..political pressure, perhaps?

no answer as to why the prosecutor wasted tax dollars with this case

That's easy. "Qualified immunity". You have to be really off the chain and have pissed off the wrong people to get Nifonged. Khan will probably not go after the DA or police, and that will be the end of it. If they get the conviction, it makes the DA look good. An acquittal may not hurt, tho a unanimous jury may have the higher ups asking questions, or giving crappy cases to work on.

What about the alcohol abuse, by both?

What do you mean by "abuse"? they were both seniors, and presumably of legal drinking age, and any appeal to in loco parentis by Yale would be...inappropriate.

Is this the definition of abuse you're using? people having fun of the sort of which I disapprove of and they should be stopped!

That said, if it were up to me and an accusation came up, I'd suspend the kid until the results of the trial.

So if a woman accused a man of raping her in a Wal Mart, all retails stores should ban his entry pending the outcome of the trial?

Also its 2018, it has been 30 months since the alleged assault and complaint took place

Walmart can do what it likes, we are talking about schools where people live together.

NiFonged is the poster child of MSU Procedures tolerated by our government. Until there is a major lawsuit that includes governments for simply slapping the hand of these public officials who subscribe and get away with MSU Processes and Procedures, they will continue to abuse their power. The prosecutor in Mr Khan's case just decided to expertly use this line of process as if people cannot think for themselves. The Prosecutor should be jailed, the school officials and law enforcements in cahoots should also be incarcerated for subscribing to such tactics. (MSU = Make Shit Up).

Walmart can do what it likes,
__________________________________

Speaking of which, NicoleK...this is from Dr. Helen, on Feb. 1.

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/will-metoo-affect-average-guy/

First sentence:

"I am troubled with the #MeToo movement that is sweeping across the U.S., and at first, I hoped it was just a fad that would pass along, but no such luck."

Somehow, the rest of the column doesn't live up to what she's implying. All I can infer is, either she thinks most of the famous men who were accused by MULTIPLE women from October through January were innocent, OR she doesn't understand that employers have far more penalizing rights than the law does - and for good reason. When Matt Lauer was accused by only a few women, the accusations turned out to be credible, at least, which is why he was fired. There may have been no more than 8 victims and that is obviously only a tiny fraction of the women Lauer would have worked with over the years. Does Dr. Helen think that Lauer should have been fired only after HALF of the female workers accused him, or what? Do employers not have an obligation to protect their employees and clients - and their own reputation?

She doesn't believe that men are generally shit? Ok, Lenona, you'll just have to agree to disagree with Helen, I suppose.

What I didn't like was her implication was that MeToo was nothing but a worthless fad from the very BEGINNING. Including Weinstein, of course. Obviously, when a lot of admired men and men who seemed very nice but turned out to be anything but that, it's not an excuse to tar and feather men who haven't even been accused yet.

Unfortunately Lenona #MeToo is just a fad. The structural issues that make people vulnerable in those industries are not being addressed. So you have one or maybe two more elections and then Democrats will decide to stop fighting amongst themselves and the abuse will start right back up.

What I didn't like was her implication was that MeToo was nothing but a worthless fad from the very BEGINNING.

Youve always had a problem with reality.

Aside from a few abusers - who already had brave people speak out about them years ago, most of whom were shouted down by people now claiming to be victims, what has the MeToo crusade bagged?

Mainly bringing down guys for clumsy comeons that happened decades ago five jobs removed and stopped the moment the woman opened her mouth and said stop

Lenona may be wrong about some things some times, but she doesn't have a problem with reality.

He’s a guy who grew up in a violent, patriarchal culture in a country in the midst of a civil war. He sounds like an arrogant asshole, and she sounds like someone with little to no experience of Western men. Why Yale took either of these people is a mystery to me. I don’t think he’s a rapist and college hearings are kangaroo courts, but no one wins in this mess.

KateC, his upbringing aside, what do you think he did to deserve the treatment he got? By all appearances, she was willing up to the point where she gagged; he didn't force her into anything, and when it became clear that she was in no shape to engage (after she threw up), he stopped. Admittedly, calling his "real" GF from his date's room (was she asleep when this was going on?) was a dick move. But so is, say, ditching your date. Does that mean that every woman who ditches her date should be hauled in front of a campus kangaroo court?

I will add that I have a lot of colleagues who have done a tour of duty in Afghanistan. To a considerable extent, it is still tribal, but they tell me that it is not nearly as universally patriarchal or misogynist as, say, Saudi Arabia. I've had one tell me that they'd take another tour in Afghanistan before they sign up for South Korea, where the younger people almost universally hate American soldiers.

What I didn't like was her implication was that MeToo was nothing but a worthless fad from the very BEGINNING. ~ lenona at March 21, 2018 1:07 PM

I gotta agree with Ben at March 21, 2018 2:57 PM on this. #MeToo made a lot of noise, but will accomplish very little. Mostly because it does not address the underlying issues of institutionalized sexual harassment in some industries.

#MeToo ignores the roles that women, both as victims and enablers, played in this. Worried about losing their dream shot at Hollywood (or TV) stardom, the victims walked into the trap. And other women, fearful of losing their place in the hierarchy, said nothing, issued no warnings, and continued feed the beast.

Too many #MeToo women, claiming to have been victims long ago, did nothing to warn future victims, thus creating more victims. And they get defensive when you point that out, insisting that only men have culpability in this. Your "when a lot of admired men and men who seemed very nice but turned out to be anything but" omitted any role that women may have played in these incidents.

One woman who spoke up right away said she was sent up to Weinstein's hotel room like a lamb to the slaughter by a woman, a woman who knew very well what was going to happen but gave her no warning, a woman who later told her he'd done the same to her.

The military incidents are different, as there was a hierarchy to which the victims could (and did) complain, to no effect.

This is not the first time the US military has been caught flat-footed by something for which it should have been prepared. For decades, the Army denied that PTSD existed as anything but a moral failing. As the cannons got bigger and fired faster, the ability of the human brain to absorb that kind of noise and concussive punishment was overwhelmed.

Through the Vietnam War, the military continued to think in 18th century terms, of shell-shock as cowardice. Sufferers were quietly rotated stateside and discharged. Not until the '90s and the first Iraq war was the military establishment forced in any way to begin dealing with the mental health casualties of modern warfare.

The military is now having to find a way to deal with sexual assault and harassment, something it should have been expecting as soon as women were allowed to enlist, but naively assumed a general order to not harass would suffice. Unlike Hollywood, however, the military will actually address the issue, not just march around with hashtags and sob stories.

Thank you, Crid.
_______________________________________

The structural issues that make people vulnerable in those industries are not being addressed.
______________________________________

Don't know what you mean. I've lost track of the many LTTEs to various publications - and op-eds in the NY Times - that call for better protection against harassment for minimum-wage female workers. The latest was on the front page, about a week and a half ago. It's about the problems with restaurant tipping.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/opinion/tipping-harassment.html

(These are the two letters written in response, but the original article is linked, and there's another important link as well.)

Um, Conan, did you miss this thread from early December?

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/12/slippy-7.html

It includes the long November article by Rebecca Traister: "We Are All Implicated," from New York Magazine. Yes, of course she talks about women who didn't blow the whistle when they could have.

At any rate, MeToo is, relatively speaking, informally structured, but it's a whistle that no one can avoid hearing. That's an undeniable start. Why should it have to be in charge, per se, of changes at any institution? We all know what the laws are, or should be, by now. People who catch police brutality on video should not have to be in charge of preventing such brutality in the future, whether the cameras were mounted on buildings or not.

Btw, to clarify what I said in my first post, TV Land yanked the reruns of "The Cosby Show" in November 2014. After dozens of accusations, none of which came from proven liars, what was TV Land supposed to do to protect its reputation? Again, there are reasons employers have quite a few rights when it comes to firing or similar moves. (Leaving aside bosses who fire women for NOT having sex - or for having sex with their own husbands at home without birth control, if you see what I mean.)

At any rate, MeToo is, relatively speaking, informally structured, but it's a whistle that no one can avoid hearing. That's an undeniable start. Why should it have to be in charge, per se, of changes at any institution? ~ lenona at March 22, 2018 10:43 AM

If, as you maintain, it's sole purpose to raise awareness of the issue, then it may serve its purpose.

I'm just remembering too many hash-tag movements that served little purpose other than to signal virtue on the part of the hash-tagger and never actually accomplished their stated objectives.

Perhaps, as with your police brutality example, they never had the institutional support needed; or were never intended to anything but signal virtue in the first place.

I suspect #MeToo is more the latter than the former as it contains no element of attacking the institutional corruption. A police brutality awareness hash-tag campaign can cause people to be aware of their taxpayer supported police misbehaving and encourage voters to reject status quo candidates.

Being aware that several women have said they were attacked by Hollywood bigwigs, some years earlier, does little to discourage people from going to the movies or watching television; and withdrawing The Cosby Show from reruns 20 years after its initial run does not leave the industry reeling.

The Hollywood #MeToo activists don't want to discourage you from going to the movies or watching television. That's how they make their living. So, once you're aware of the issue, what then? For a campaign to be more than a fad, it has to be coupled with an action people can take. #MeToo is not.

Kind of like tying yellow ribbons around your trees to get Islamic fanatics to release hostages 10,000 miles away. Looks good. Feels good. Is it effective? Not really.

In addition, I'm remembering too many movements to raise awareness that were quickly corrupted and ended up diminishing their causes, rather than enhancing them. Date rape awareness anyone?

Leaving aside bosses who fire women for ... having sex with their own husbands at home without birth control, if you see what I mean. ~ lenona at March 22, 2018 10:43 AM

Um, women are not being fired for the stated reason of having sex with her husband at home without birth control.

However, if you're using that rather tortured hyperbole to insinuate that women are being fired for getting pregnant, well that, too, would be improbable as that has been illegal since at least 1978.

There have been some cases in which women have sued for being suspended from jobs when they could no longer perform the duties required because of a pregnancy.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 made it illegal for employers to fire, demote, reassign, or refuse to hire a woman for being pregnant. So, if you can't reassign a woman when she can no longer perform the duties of a job due to pregnancy, what choice does and employer have at that point, but to suspend the employee? Sometimes there are unintended consequences to an otherwise well-meaning law.

Another case in the article involved exposure to toxic chemicals which could harm the baby. The company could have left the employee in that job and risked being sued for any complications later, or suspended the employee involved. It chose to put her on unpaid leave.

Suggestions for resolving this problem have included having pregnancy covered under the ADA as a disability. Doing this would legally classify pregnant women as disabled (not something all women might get behind), but would also afford them the protection of the ADA which mandates "reasonable" accommodation - meaning a pregnant woman could be reassigned while pregnant without the employer violating a law and incurring government sanction.

"I've lost track of the many LTTEs to various publications - and op-eds in the NY Times - that call for better protection against harassment for minimum-wage female workers."

And that will have zero effect. The same number and type of abuse will still happen.

While poundMeToo focused only on the women who were sexually harassed they are hardly the only victims. The root issue is too many people wanting to get into a field than that field can support. It is the law of supply and demand. When supply far outstrips demand the value of that supply goes to zero. As those employees become valueless and disposable they get treated as such. Harassed sexually and otherwise. Abused until they are either used up or can't take it anymore. And once that happens they are thrown away and someone else takes their place.

As for making more things illegal, so what? A lot of what was going on was already illegal. Rape has been a crime for quite a while. Pedophilia too. Many of the working conditions are illegal. Doesn't matter. If people want in they won't report things. Crimes that don't get exposed don't get prosecuted. So enact a new law. Enact a dozen. Nothing changes.

As for raising awareness, meh. Anyone who cared to know knew these things were going on. It was old old news. Maybe you didn't know all the salacious details but the general situation wasn't a secret. Awareness was only raised in those who didn't want to know in the first place. Either they didn't care because it didn't affect them or they wanted in too much and were willing to ignore what was going on.

NicoleK: That said, if it were up to me and an accusation came up, I'd suspend the kid until the results of the trial.

Ah, so a kid should be suspended from school, merely over an accusation? What a terrible idea. Inflicting punishment on someone who is merely accused of a crime.

Conan, kindly read this again:
_______________________________________

Again, there are reasons employers have quite a few rights when it comes to firing or similar moves. (Leaving aside bosses who fire women for NOT having sex - or for having sex with their own husbands at home without birth control, if you see what I mean.)
______________________________________

In other words, yes, I KNOW about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. I was simply pointing out that most of the CURRENT legal reasons for firing people are pretty reasonable, whether Dr. Helen wants to admit that or not.

And to clarify a bit more; D.H. seemed to think that it was just plain morally wrong - or gauche - for so many popular, famous men to be accused in such a short time, with hardly a breath in between. What did she expect? There's strength in numbers, so it only made sense for everyone to speak up at once when MeToo got started, especially in those cases where women suddenly realized that their predators had targeted at least a dozen others. One rumor has it that the reason 1980s actress Sean Young has only had small roles for almost 30 years is that she threatened to blow the whistle on Weinstein and so he ruined her career.
____________________________________

As for raising awareness, meh.
______________________________________

Ben, I don't know about the adult-only community, but maybe at least this will make parents think harder about how to talk to their teens about such issues - and that includes talking to daughters, as well, about the need to speak up, of course.

After all, even though almost every ten-year-old already knows that driving drunk is very wrong and seriously illegal, no one would say that it's a stupid waste of time and money for parents and teachers to make TEENS sit through lectures on legal/illegal alcohol use. Why? Because teens all too often lose the common sense they had when younger - and have an arrogance they didn't have when younger. What's so different about other issues - and the need to make sure teens truly understand and respect the laws?

Again, there are reasons employers have quite a few rights when it comes to firing or similar moves. (Leaving aside bosses who fire women for NOT having sex - or for having sex with their own husbands at home without birth control, if you see what I mean.)

Leona, please take a writing class. You're obviously a bright and well-read woman, but your syntax has been tortured to point it's giving up national secrets faster than Hillary's server.

My apologies, Leona, I was a bit curt there. You normally express yourself very well, but that paragraph was a mess.

Very nice, Conan, thank you.