"The Scarlet Letter" and the #Me Too Moment.

As of September, 2018 no response has been received by me to my communications to American officials, police, prosecutors and judges or justices.

Distinguished attorneys from the U.S. and other countries, I believe, have inquired into my matters in an effort to learn the truth about crimes committed against me.

These inquiries have (so far) also been ignored by U.S. authorities.

No documents or proofs have been returned to me and/or others by U.S. officials and no explanation has been provided as to any decision to avoid an investigation of the allegations in my communications in a "timely fashion" as required by law as well as ethical standards, including judicial ethics and policies governing the actions of public officials.

It is important to understand the message being communicated in this very public matter about dehumanization of some of us whose legal status and rights are denied or ignored in our own country.

To be denied recognition of basic human rights and relegated to silence from government about the most horrible crimes committed against us is to be made into slaves or sub-humans.

The dominant power-structure in America today has made, or seeks to make, many of us slaves on the basis of lack of wealth, race, gender or sexual-orientation, immigration status, and other "immutable characteristics" over which we have no control. 

Please refer to the famous footnote #4 in the U.S. Supreme Court's Carolene Products decision that speaks of "discrete and insular minorities" which must never be deprived of the "equal protection of the law."

The category of threatened "minorities" today, ironically, may well include politically conservative men who happen to be university professors or judges. ("Guerrilla Aesthetics and the Lobotomizing of the American Mind.") 

If the Constitution of the United States of America has nothing to say about my reality and the censorship you are witnessing at this blog then the Bill of Rights has effectively been rescinded or abolished.

A useful analogy may be to compare my situation to the plight of George Orwell's "non-persons" in 1984. 

At some point, perhaps when the empirical evidence supporting my allegations and those made by others was no longer subject to "plausible denial" it seems that I stopped "existing" as far as New Jersey's Supreme Court and legal ethics establishment is concerned. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")  

The next essay posted at this blog dealing with New Jersey corruption and ineptitude will be sent with attachments to Brett Kavanaugh, if he is confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Jefferson B. Sessions, Esq., as U.S. Attorney General, if he has not been fired by Mr. Trump; and to the Cuban Embassy to the United States of America, if there are still diplomatic relations between the two countries; finally, a package will also be sent to The Wall Street Journal. 

"Today the forces of reaction wear a face described by Bertram Gross as that of 'friendly fascism': [Donald J. Trump?] they appear not so much repressive as redemptive, not Machiavellian but moralistic, not even authoritarian but only avuncular. Their deepest wish is to 'save' us, ["This is for your own good."] the fallen race of humans, from ourselves -- from our violent natures and destructive impulses. They are like the faceless oligarchs of Huxley's dystopian society, of whom he wrote ... 'they are not madmen, and their aim is not anarchy but stability. [Security?] It is in order to achieve stability that they [would] carry out, by scientific means, the ultimate personal really revolutionary revolution [of fascism]."

Ashley Montague & Floyd Matsow, The Dehumanization of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983), p. 109.   

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter (New York: Signet Classics, 1999, 1st Ed., 1850). 

Brett M. Kavanaugh, The Judge as an Umpire: The Ten Principles, 65 Cath. U. L. Rev. 683 (2016).

Brett M. Kavanaugh, Keynote Address: Two Challenges for the Judge as an Umpire: Statutory Ambiguity and Constitutional Exceptions, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1907 (2017).  

Elizabeth Harris, "2 Fordham Students Speak Against Professor and Are Censured," The New York Times, April 28, 2018, p. A21.

"#Me Too Becomes #You Too," (Editorial) The New York Times, April 28, 2018, p. A23.

Thomas Kaplan, "Pennsylvania Congressman Who Settled Harassment Case Resigns Amid Inquiry," The New York Times, April 28, 2018, p. A19. 

John Lanchester, "Doesn't Add Up," The New Yorker, July 23, 2018, p. 59.

Zoe Greenberg, ["Gina Bellafante"] "A Female Professor, Her Male Student[,] and the Limits of #Me Too," The New York Times, August 18, 2018, p. A1.

Gina Bellafante, ["Zoe Greenberg"] "N.Y.U. Harassment Case Is Grad School Lesson For All," The New York Times, August 18, 2018, p. A19.

Elizabeth Dias, ["Manohla Dargis"] "Parishioners Didn't Suspect Him. Then They Scrolled to Page 631.[,]" The New York Times, August 19, 2018, p. A1.

Kim Severson, "#Me Too Star Settled Claim of Her Own," The New York Times, August 20, 2018, p. A1. 

Luis Ferre-Sadurni, "We Are Entitled to Righteous Anger," The New York Times, August 20, 2018, p. A17.

William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess & Maggie Haberman, "Loans Inquiry May Soon Put Cohen in Bind," The New York Times, August 20, 2018, p. A1. 

Matt Stevens & Kim Severson, "California Police Review Claims Against Actress," The New York Times, August 21, 2018, p. A18.

Maya Saram, "The #Me Too Movement is For All, Founder Says," The New York Times, August 21, 2018, p. A18. 

William K. Rashbaum, et als., "Pleading Guilty, Cohen Implicates the President," The New York Times, August 22, 2018, p. A16.

Kim Severson, "Actor, Finally Speaking Publicly, Says Stigma of Case Kept Him Secret," The New York Times, August 25, 2018, p. A16.

Michael Wilson, "Ex-City Health Commissioner and C.D.C. Director Is Arrested On a Charge of Sexual Assault," The New York Times, August 25, 2018, p. A17.

Maggie Astor, ["Manohla Dargis"] "Women in Politics Often Must Run a Gauntlet of Vile Intimidation," The New York Times, August 26, 2018, p. A1. 

Tiffany Hsu & Alexandra Alter, "Exposing Feud, Ex-Chief Sues Barnes & Noble," The New York Times, August 29, 2018, p. B1.

Kim Swenson, "Argento Text is Given to Police," The New York Times, August 30, 2018, p. C1.

Erica L. Green, "De Vos Plans to Reshape Sexual Misconduct Rules," The New York Times, August 30, 2018, p. A1. 

Safon Deb, "Look Who's Creeping Back: Luis C.K. Welcome, Clubs Say," The New York Times, "Arts Section," September 1, 2018, p. C1.  

"Prosecutors Won't Charge 3 Actors for Sexual Abuse," The New York Times, September 5, 2018, p. A18. 

Michael Cooper, "Accusations Against Domingo Split Opera World," The New York Times, August 19, 2019, p. A1. (Rumors that the true source of these allegations against Placido Domingo is his latest rival, Jonas Kaufman, cannot be confirmed. I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Domingo "forced" himself on any woman. Does Professor Ford claim that she was "raped" by Placido Domingo?)

Michael Cooper, "Dallas Opera Cancels Domingo Gala," The New York Times, "Arts Section," September 7, 2019, p. C3. ("The AP which reported the first round of mostly ANONYMOUS allegations against Mr. Domingo last month, published a new report Thursday." One woman is willing to step forward and be identified. This person's allegation is that decades ago Mr. Domingo "grabbed her breast" and that because of rejecting his "advances" she was not rehired at the Dallas Opera. Placido Domingo had nothing to do with hiring decisions at this Opera house; has little recollection if any of the person making the accusation; and he has received over one hundred non-U.S. offers to fill the date that has now become vacant in his schedule. Evidently, this "accuser" of Mr. Domingo has many of the same advisers as Professor Ford the accuser of Justice Kavanaugh. On the other hand it is unclear whether Justice Kavanaugh can sing a tenor aria and hit the high-C.)  

Do we believe in due process of law?

One of the patterns frequently detected in American cultural history is the national obsession with "sin" or a fear of "evil" persons dwelling among us. 

In America, among politicians and other public figures, the devil is always lurking in the shadows and "good people" are eternally vulnerable to temptation leading to the loss of their sacred virtue. ("Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")

This remarkable tendency, literally, to "demonize" a hidden source of the community's misfortunes at any given time that is usually associated with the latest arrivals on our shores, or any "unconventional persons" (gays, lesbians, multi-gendered "others," artists, intellectuals, Communists, etc. ...), inevitably produces much suffering for many innocent people and only adds to our troubles. 

It has become a customary usage to refer to "gays" or male homosexuals separately from "lesbians" or female homosexuals. In my effort to be "inclusive" I will always do my best to deploy the preferred terminology. 

For persons in frequently demonized groups to indulge in similar efforts to abuse or vilify others is unwise at least and may be suicidal. 

Lesbians may wish to reconsider their war on urban males.

Republican Cuban-Americans approving of Mr. Trump's migrant detention centers may wish to recall their history in this country. 

This bizarre national characteristic of seeking scapegoats has certainly been a rich source of art from the Salem Witch trials that served as a metaphor for Arthur Miller's "Crucible" to the obsessive focus on the sexuality of other people depicted in "The Boys in the Band," along with the intense search for "perverts" among our neighbors (Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita), or plain old "homosexuals" (Gore Vidal's The City and the Pillar), the goal for "God's good people" continues to be to unmask and punish those who only seem "normal" while indulging, secretly, in sinister or twisted sexual fantasies that may become (if one is very fortunate) realities but that we must always pretend are "abnormal" or "sinful." ("Oh, to be in India ..." and "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes.") 

The notion that secret sexual fantasies and, indeed, a busy and active as well as "creative" sex life, particularly among artists, is about as normal as people get does not seem to, as it were, arise among our Christian brethren. 

The point has been made repeatedly that if we begin investigating and commenting on the sex lives of our neighbors it may soon be the turn of other persons to investigate and comment upon our sex lives as "good-middle-class-tax-paying-Americans." ("On Bullshit.")  

We certainly can not achieve any kind of consistency in ostensible and publicly announced sexual principles (if there are such things) given the "irregularities" in human nature. 

Hypocrisy is also as American as "apple pie" or oral sex and adultery for that matter. ("Gore Vidal is Someone to Laugh at the Squares With.")

Perhaps the greatest example of this curious feature of America's national identity (obsessing about the sex lives of others) is one of the finest novels in American literature The Scarlet Letter. 

Ideally, for some people, today's Hester Prynne is a middle-aged, male university professor or politician, lawyer, or judge deemed "guilty" of making young women feel "uncomfortable." 

Feeling "uncomfortable" about the sexuality of male authority figures (or about your developing sexuality and power to attract others as a female person) is now sufficient for young women to be described, usually by themselves, as "survivors." 

Reality, as usual, is a little more complex than this stereotype suggests and, evidently, even women who are lesbians and trendy feminists -- this may be a redundancy -- also have sex lives and may try to take advantage of potential partners of either, any, or all sexes. 

No one has a monopoly on virtue despite the ravings of Roxanne Gay and Rachel Maddow who may be the same person or political interest group. ("The Naked Ape.")   

At any rate, given the increasing popularity of the term, I often find myself asking self-described "survivors": 

What exactly have you "survived"? 

Presumably, many women today believe that enduring a certain "emotion" is sufficient for them to qualify as "survivors" -- especially an emotion caused, allegedly, by a male authority figure accused for whatever reasons, if any, of "deliberately" making them "feel bad" about themselves (often the dreaded male may not be aware of having generated this response) because of some aspect of the male person's behavior (or his conservative values) as he goes about his daily life.

Exactly how anyone "causes" an emotion of this subtle sort in another person is not explained. 

Are "emotions" merely subjective and, hence, like values "unreal" or "totally relative" for political divas? ("Why I am not an ethical relativist.") 

Male sexuality, according to some truly deranged self-styled "radical feminists," is "violence against women." 

What is even more insane is the allegation made by a few so-called "theorists" that sexual aggression can only take place between men and women because men are always the aggressors since they are usually in positions of power. 

"Rape" is now redefined as men's "violence against women" as are erotica, contact sports, and, possibly, Donald J. Trump's presidency. ("New Jersey Lesbian Professor Rapes a Disabled Man" and "N.J. Lesbian Sends Nude Photos to Minor.")  

An alleged lesbian effort is underway to make men feel guilty about possessing (or being possessed by) penises. ("Good Will Humping" and "Genius and Lust.") 

It should be noted, however, that there is usually only one penis per man. 

Power is not reserved exclusively to any one gender these days. Perhaps power has always been shared by men and women in sexual relationships. ("David Hume's Philosophical Romance" and "Stuart Hampshire and Iris Murdoch on Freedom of Mind.")

This regrettable effort by angry and militant or self-described "activist" lesbians is unlikely to succeed with me nor with many of the men I happen to know who have a slightly more complex view of human sexuality. ("Is there a gay marriage right?") 

It seems to be denied, for example, by many female commentators that women are often at least as sexual as men or that both sexes often display what psychologists call "heterosexual behavior." 

It is extraordinary how very differently prominent feminists, such as Judith Butler and Bell Hooks, have responded to allegations of male sexual aggression or "inappropriateness" (whatever that means) as compared with sometimes far worse conduct attributed to women targeting younger and less powerful persons than themselves. ("Judith Butler and Gender Theory.")   

Two recent legal and ethical controversies provide illustrations or examples of this division and disparities in the national culture and psyche. 

In what follows I will examine allegations against Fordham philosophy professor William Jaworski and far worse charges against New York University (NYU) philosopher Avital Ronnell. The accusations against these philosophers have emerged shortly after self-righteous bemoaning in the Times of charges that turned out to be groundless against Colin McGinn and similar accusations against John Searle that will probably also be found to be without merit. ("John Searle and David Chalmers On Consciousness" and "Colin McGinn's Naughty Book.") 

Numerous additional accusations against lesbian professors have appeared in the media during recent days. 

I suspect that we will see more accusations against "prominent" lesbian writers and academics in "Women's Studies Departments." 

It is interesting that the accused philosophers express nearly diametrically opposed views on metaphysical and ethical matters that parallel the divisions between analytical and traditionalist as opposed to Continentalist or postmodernist positions in contemporary thought. 

The tensions in the views of these philosophers are at the center of current unfortunate and unnecessary intellectual divisions in the Western world.

The thinkers identified with these conflicting world views generate polarized and intensely hostile reactions from different sectors of U.S. society for understandable reasons that have nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with politics. 

The criminal justice system and judges generally are not equipped to resolve theoretical disputes or controversies between metaphysical and religious systems or political ideologies. American judges have enough trouble struggling to decide legal controversies competently on the rare occasions when they do so. Judges are the last persons to resolve difficult philosophical controversies. ("Law and Literature.")  

It does not prove one of these philosophers "wrong" to arrange for that person to be fired or arrested or denied confirmation to a judicial position because of convenient accusations of sexual harassment. 

It is also irrelevant to a philosophical debate whether you consider one proponent of a disputed position a "bad" person (or unethical) since this accusation (if true) would not necessarily reach the merits of the intellectual or logical issue. ("John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")   

What is not "potential abuse"?  

"Allegations have been swirling around William Jaworski for years." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21.) 

The opening statement in the Times coverage of Professor Jaworski's "situation" (there are no criminal charges at this time and there will not be any) is puzzling since the allegations that have "swirled" are not defined. 

The nature of the allegations against the Fordham philosopher are not specific, as I say, but there is a suggestion of a "climate of doubt" about this professor created in the "minds" of students and colleagues or even for readers of this article in The New York Times. 

Mr. Jaworski is "suspected" or "has been suspected" in the past of something vague and sinister that is also not defined but which has caused a young student (or at most two women) in his classes to feel "bad." 

"An associate philosophy professor at Fordham University, Dr. Jaworski was accused of making female students feel 'uncomfortable' and 'unsafe' according to a letter he received from the university. Many formal and informal complaints were made against him, [allegedly,] two of which were substantiated, one for sexual harassment and another for unprofessional conduct. The letter said that the pattern of conduct had gone on for over a decade." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21.)

The sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct allegations are not specifically discussed, but they seem to amount, again, to making a single student "uncomfortable" for unstated reasons. 

The student complainant(s) have attended the university for at most two years so that a "pattern of conduct over decades" when only two complaints by the same person(s) have been "substantiated," even though there is no objective evidence listed of the alleged incident(s), in one lecture to which the single remaining complainant refers, hardly constitutes a pattern of conduct over decades.

Professor Jaworski has hired an attorney and is already isolated and professionally deeply harmed by these allegations such as they are no matter what happens eventually to vindicate him. 

The potential for blackmail of professors is very high under these circumstances.

A person who is self-identified as a "traditionalist" in ethics and who has taught philosophy for many years at a Catholic university is required to respond to these complaints when the accusers were not identified to him, initially, and despite the rejection of similar complaints in the past by students found to disagree with the professor's ethical views and finding no other way to express their opposition. 

Students are not required to enroll in Professor Jaworski's course and are free to drop the class within the first month at least if they dislike the material or an instructor who has received excellent reviews from the vast majority of his students over many years. 

Complaints such as these were dismissed in the past without the accused professor(s) even being informed of the accusations or provided with the opportunity to respond to accusations and/or to confront accusers. 

This policy may have been motivated by an appropriate concern that mere allegations against a controversial teacher can result -- especially these days -- in lasting professional harm in academia. 

There may be a record of allegations in a university file that were never investigated because they were deemed implausible or absurd, but which will now be potentially harmful to a well-respected professional accused of doing "something" but no one seems to be very clear about what, specifically, he did (if anything) that is actionable, offensive, or inappropriate. 

It is likely that such "dismissed" past accusations will be leaked to the press eventually. 

The current scandal surrounding sexual abuse by priests has created a hyper-cautious approach to all accusations of "discomfort" by students at Catholic universities. 

What does "substantiated" mean in this context?

There is no explanation in the Times article about how the term "substantiated" is used in these various contexts. It is unclear in particular what substantiated could possibly mean if the person who is accused of "something" is not even informed of what he is alleged to have done nor invited to provide counter-evidence or to challenge the evidence against him, if any, that is offered by the so-called "complainants" or persons filing grievances perhaps at the request of others such as faculty members who are rivals for a promotion or administrative position or students. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.") 

No one is legally responsible for the emotions of others. 

If Professor Jaworski were to, say, scratch his nose and this gesture made one of his female students "feel bad" or "uncomfortable" with her sexuality, I am not sure that Professor Jaworski is to be blamed for these feelings on the part of his offended listener(s) and/or student(s). 

Students, again, have chosen to attend lectures by a well-respected scholar who is an expert on virtue ethics and a political Conservative. 

Fordham seniors Samantha Norman and Eliza Putnam, we are told, decided to "do something about" Professor Jaworski's "outrageous conduct" which is unspecified. The women took it upon themselves to appear in one of the professor's classes prior to the teacher's arrival:

"We introduced ourselves and said, 'We just want you to know that there is a history of allegations against this professor and multiple Title IX complaints,' Ms. Putnam said." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21.) 

Evidently, the women did not believe that common decency required them to meet with Professor Jaworski prior to their performance in order to inform him of what they intended to do and why they intended to do it so as to give him an opportunity to respond to their accusations whatever they might be. 

What is more bizarre these students chose to remain in Professor Jaworski's classes because they were "learning a lot."

This seems (to me) like a recommendation of Professor Jaworski's teaching methods and competence as a philosopher.

It did not occur to these women that in today's hysterical climate female protests, or vague allegations against a male authority figure, may be equivalent to guilt of some nefarious primordial fault that probably involves, again, the possession of a penis, or a lack of fondness for Ellen Degeneres, or some other heinous sin against "inclusiveness." 

The mere accusation of "insensitivity" could do real harm to the accused regardless of the absurdity of the charge. 

Mayor de Blasio in good faith and other politicians for more cynical reasons have said that women's "accusations" of abuse require immediate action and must not be ignored. 

Action based on accusations without adequate investigation is very dangerous and may make authorities look foolish, but it could also deprive the accused person of fundamental Constitutional rights without a legal remedy for the harm suffered.

I find myself pondering new "allegations" (or rumors) that have come to light about Judge Kavanaugh ostensibly from a mysterious "anonymous" source about events said to have occurred decades ago, but never mentioned before by this person (if she exists), but which, nevertheless, suddenly are meant to be taken seriously by U.S. Senators considering Mr. Kavanaugh's confirmation for the vacant U.S. Supreme Court position.

If this witness did not exist, to paraphrase Voltaire, it would be necessary for some radical feminists to invent her (and maybe they have in a way) in order to confirm their views of Judge Kavanaugh. 

It is certainly unlikely that any prospective witness will be permitted to dictate the terms of his/her testimony to the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee that is concerned to avoid being manipulated by any political interest group that happens to be "behind" these allegations.  

A recent tendency to fabricate facts and rely on suspicious "anonymous" sources as well as Op-Ed authors in America's newspaper of record leads me to be skeptical of this story, particularly in light of the dramatic timing of "revelations" that are also not very specific and all-too trendy as regards "sexually inappropriate" or "politically incorrect" or insufficiently "inclusive" behavior by a "privileged white male." (Compare "Is the universe only a numbers game?" with "Ought implies can.")

If the so-called "accuser" is unwilling to step forward and face cross-examination or investigation of these allegations like any other witness then her accusations may well be ignored.

As things now stand a woman who remained silent for decades has made an allegation categorically denied by the other two persons who, she claims, were present decades ago when the incident is said to have occurred. 

What is more significant is the discrepancy between various versions or statements made at different times and occasions suggesting alterations in recollection by the witness, including a failure (for years) to name Mr. Kavanaugh as the "sexual predator," accompanied by a recent tendency to be certain of what she could not previously recall. 

Admitted "inaccuracies" (Professor Ford's word) in several statements made under oath have resulted already in multiple accounts of a single event where memory not only improves over time for the witness but actually seems to come into existence with the arrival of television cameras and recording devices.    

It is not a "confirmation" of such allegations that the witness complained of such events or named Judge Kavanaugh (very recently) to her husband and/or therapist. Such statements after the fact may constitute what lawyers call "hearsay" and will have very limited or no probative value whatsoever.  

The prospective witness, Professor Christine Ford, is admitted to have been in therapy recently, possibly under hypnosis, and reportedly is highly suggestible or unstable, suffering from anxiety, fear of flying, and/or she may even be deluded if entirely sincere in her continuing "evolving" recollection of events. 

Given the journalists promoting this story, perhaps to obtain a lucrative potential book contract, all the incentives and probabilities suggest that truth may not be the foremost motivation of those using this poor woman's story for their more cynical purposes. ("Is truth dead?")

It is interesting that self-proclaimed feminists outraged by so-far unsupported allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are not troubled about Senator Menendez's fondness for underage prostitutes and generally highly questionable behavior towards women in his life. As a matter of fact many of the women already speaking out about this alleged incident in Judge Kavanaugh's life were supportive of Democrats Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky matter and Anthony Wiener in his recent "sexting" controversy. ("Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes" and "Wedding Bells Ring For Menendez!")  

Not surprisingly, again, there is no objective empirical evidence to confirm the claims against Judge Kavanaugh, but damage to this man's life and to the lives of his wife and daughters as well as others may be done anyway not that political opponents care about this possibility.

Sensitivity to the feelings of a "survivor" or witness-complainant of abuse should not preclude any of us from feeling an equal sensitivity to the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process and respect for any person whose professional life and character are subject to destruction on the basis of flawed and fleeting "recollections" or the need to sell newspapers.  

Judge Kavanaugh's life and the welfare or "feelings" of his lovely daughters along with all of his family members have become "collateral damage" in the political chess game being played by politicians on all sides damaging the confirmation process and, indirectly, discrediting the United States Supreme Court.  

I find it surprising that, given the heinousness of rape and/or sexual assault, there would be a decades-old failure to mention the event by this person and a fear of coming forward now that would risk exposure of any lies or "misconceptions" about what, if anything, happened when Mr. Kavanaugh was in high school. 

The most likely result of all this farrago is that a good man's reputation and, indeed, that of the tribunal he expects to join will be sullied permanently in a manner we have not seen since the unseemly Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. ("On Bullshit" and "Law and Morals.") 

If the bizarre new allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh turn out to be false he is certainly entitled to an apology, as are all of us, but we would then also like to know who is really behind this slew of allegations of "insensitivity to women's issues" asserted by Jane Mayer, Rachel Maddow, Roxanne Gay, and the usual journalistic suspects much favored on MSNBC who are so fond of fictitious names and, perhaps, other fabrications in their media writings.  

Fordham University began a formal inquiry against the women students to determine "whether they had violated its code of conduct for dishonesty, disorderly conduct and verbal harassment." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21.) 

This would also be to determine whether Professor Jaworski is a "survivor" of illicit harassment. 

The accusation of dishonesty against the women and/or female persons was "substantiated" to use the jargon in these proceedings resulting in a reprimand to the students.

These women's tactics are not unknown among New Jersey's counterparts to these female persons: Alexandra Ramirez, Lourdes Santiago, Maureen Manteneo, Lilian Munoz, Maria Martinez a.k.a. Barcelo. 

Dr. Jaworski continued to deny the allegations against him (whatever they may be) -- allegations which may be even more absurd than so-called "charges" of "insensitivity" and/or heterosexuality against Colin McGinn and John Searle, respectively, from former graduate students they supervised who sought the professors' recommendations AFTER the alleged conduct complained of is said to have occurred. 

The Provost of Fordham University Stephen Friedman wrote a formal letter to Dr. Jaworski: 

"Your behavior has made many of our female students feel uncomfortable, [if this is true, how is this Professor Jaworski's responsibility or fault?] others have felt marginalized and others have told us they feel unsafe." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21.)

All of the persons claiming to experience these "feelings" chose to sign-up for Professor Jaworski's course and, again and not surprisingly, subsequently asked for his recommendations after he supposedly generated these terrible feelings but before they complained to school authorities. 

Dr. Jaworski's lawyer noted that "Dr. Jaworski was being targeted because the cultural leftists [sic.] are intolerant of traditional morality." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21.)

Women students engaging in the allegedly "offensive" performance in Professor Jaworski's classroom have "adversely affected the reputation and professional standing" of a previously distinguished scholar who will, no doubt, be "disinvited" to scholarly conferences and symposia; whose works will now be ignored or treated disrespectfully by reviewers or so-called colleagues; the accusations may even result in eventual dismissal from his position or forced retirement if he is without tenure and will limit his options if he has earned tenure. 

Any of these outcomes will cause Professor Jaworski to feel "uncomfortable" and/or "unsafe" even if his sinister heterosexuality has not been affected by the entire episode. 

No one seems very concerned about the professor's "feelings." 

The Times reporter "Elizabeth Harris" is one of the persons writing under the name "Manohla Dargis," also under other pseudonyms, and he/she/it seems to go out of "her" way to express sympathy for the accusers and hostility to the accused: " .. the women's experiences speaks to a dangerous pressure to keep quiet about potential abuse. ..." (N.Y.T., April 28, 2018, p. A21, emphasis added.) ("'The Reader': A Movie Review.")  

How is "potential abuse" defined as an offense covered by the relevant code of conduct at Fordham University? If there is no such "potential abuse" offense on the books are proponents of such a vague and almost meaningless "charge" (or new "crime") suggesting that persons should be accused of such a thing? How would one escape guilt for such an all-inclusive offense? 

Any person may be subject to such an all-inclusive offense (unethical?) and would find it difficult to prevail against this amorphous charge. 

Anything and everything a person does may be described as "potential abuse" by an allegedly offended person whose feathers may be ruffled, but who will soon be soothed by an improved grade, perhaps, or a settlement figure of many thousands of dollars in compensation for his/her "pain" to say nothing of the opportunity to testify before the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee. 

Are there different standards when lesbians abuse others?  

"Avital Ronell, a world-renowned female professor of German and comparative literature [sic.] at New York University, was found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate student, Nimrod Reitman." (N.Y.T., August 14, 2018, p. A1.)

What is astonishing in this genuinely sleazy scenario is not only the nature of the accusations against Professor Ronell that include physical sexual assaults, groping, sexual conduct, kissing, explicit sexual communications, FORCING herself into the bed of the young man who is complaining of this treatment and who was the person in the servile position as well as powerless, but the genuine professional harm that was threatened against the victim if he failed to comply with the professor's wishes. 

There was actual attempted harm of the young male scholar's reputation by the older authority figure and alleged lesbian who seems "inordinately fond," nevertheless, of sex with men. 

This fondness for straight sex is admitted by Professor Ronell, reluctantly, despite the fact that "the male penis," to paraphrase Ms. Ronell, is a "patriarchal device of domination." ("Richard and I.") 

I certainly think of my penis in such terms and, I am sure, Donald J. Trump does too. ("'This is totally amazing!' -- Donald J. Trump.") 

It is even more curious that Professor Ronell was among those who found Colin McGinn's relatively tame and mild "sexy e-mails" to a female graduate student "shocking" and "inappropriate" as well as "unforgivable." No doubt Professor Ronell criticized Professor Jaworski for making his students "feel bad." ("Colin McGinn's Sins and American Sanctimony.") 

Professor Ronell's e-mails to Mr. Reitman, who is now a self-described "survivor" of sexual abuse and who should be in therapy for confusion at the very least since he also claims to be gay, were far more offensive and vile to say nothing of "perverted" (to use a popular term of lesbian abuse in these matters) than anything written by Professor McGinn. ("Colin McGinn's Naughty Book.") 

"[Professor Ronell] asked him to read poetry to her in bed while she took an afternoon nap. ... [She wrote to the victim:] 'I will try very hard not to kiss you ... time for your midday kiss. ... we're on the sofa, your head is on my lap, [I am] stroking your head, playing with your hair, soothing your headache gone. Yes?' ..." (N.Y.T., August 14, 2018, p. A23.)

Far more explicit statements were sent to Mr. Reitman who expressed reservations that became increasingly insistent along with requests that these erotic conversations (and conduct) stop and that he be left alone in his private life.

Professor Ronell "pulled Mr. Reitman into her bed" and forced him to "grab her breasts" and to perform other sexual actions." (N.Y.T., August 14, 2018, p. A23.) 

One would expect that the very same lesbian scholars complaining of Colin McGinn's "behavior" and John Searle's "insensitivity" to women's issues as well as Professor Jaworski's "causing" of young women's negative "feelings" would immediately speak out about this shameful conduct by a member of their "faculty" for lack of a better word. ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love Fest.")  

Mr. Reitman certainly has been made to "feel bad" and "unsafe" in his "learning environment" given that his professor was trying to wrestle him to the floor so that they could have sexual intercourse almost every time she saw him. 

Surprisingly enough, however, there seems to be a very different attitude on display by prominent lesbian scholars and commentators on academic matters when women are accused of wrongdoing: 

"Soon after the university made its final, confidential determination this spring [sic.] a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists[,] sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. Judith Butler, the author of the book Gender Trouble and one of the most influential feminist scholars today, was first on the list." (N.Y.T., August 14, 2018, p. A23.)

Rather than expressing sympathy for the victim or concern about "sexualizing our educational institutions" -- matters that trouble these same scholars when men are the culprits -- these so-called intellectual female persons said:

" ... 'Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, [but have decided that the victim is lying anyway?] we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell ... we have all seen her relationship [sic.] with students, and some of us know the individual [blame and insult the victim?] who has waged this malicious campaign against her' ... " (N.Y.T., August 14, 2018, p. A23.) 

Professor Ronell's scholarly importance and lesbian credentials were deemed sufficient to nullify any accusation by a man even if there were objective evidence of lewd and offensive communications and unwanted sexual attentions focused on the much younger male person dependent on this "female" mentor for his professional survival. 

Double standards? 

Hypocrisy? 

If the gender of the culprit were male (assuming that it is not since gender we are told by these same scholars is "always in question") and that of the victim were female (assuming that it is not) would the reaction among lesbian Leftists and/or radical feminists be different? If so, why? ("A Doll's Aria" and "What you will ...") 

It has actually been suggested that criminal and other laws, including the provisions of Title IX, should only protect women from men. Accordingly, aggression by women victimizing men should not be covered by laws to protect all persons against sexual abuse, harassment, rape, or violence. 

Perhaps even the murder of men by women is legally permissible as far as these lesbians are concerned. 

So far, at least, the rape of men by women has not been given legal sanction, but some "distinguished lesbians" have suggested that a woman forcing a man to have sex with her against his will should not be a subject of police attention or concern. 

Diana Davis, who is identified as a "female lesbian of color," said that she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was "using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist." (N.Y.T., August 14, 2018, p. A23.) 

In a democratic society governed by the rule of law legal protections cannot be applied only to benefit one gender at the expense of the other gender's rights. 

Traditionally, in the wicked old days, laws were applied equally to everyone as a matter of due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution or at least this was the ideal. 

When feminists call for "special treatment" under the law and denial of rights to others in society they may wish to reflect on the  possibility that other groups in society will make the same request and target them for abuse. 

If laws are applied in a discriminatory fashion it is more likely that people will resort to self-help and there will be more illegality and violence by all social groups. 

Much of the support for what has come to be called "White Supremacy" movements and Right-wing politics is a reaction to perceived discrimination against white men, especially, and white women also as a result of misapplications (or abuse) of so-called "anti-discrimination laws." 

The perception of discrimination against whites may often be inaccurate, but it is at least sometimes true (it seems to me) that persons who are white are treated with less sympathy for their feelings and obvious victimization in today's academia and, perhaps, elsewhere, as in the professions and business or the arts. 

Incidents such as this NYU episode leading to law suits that will cost the university millions of dollars make it clear that the matter needs to be treated much more seriously than it has been so far.  

The solution to America's polarized politics and new ambiguities in relations between men and women in universities and also in business or the professions is not to exclude white or all male persons from legal protections, which is clearly unconstitutional, but to apply legal principles to the best of our ability fairly and equally to everyone in as neutral a manner as humanly possible which is a definition of the primary judicial responsibility in U.S. society. 

I am surprised that in the hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court the judge was not asked whether he accepted the awesome responsibility to apply the principles of the Constitution equally to all litigants (battered briefcases notwithstanding) coming before the U.S. Supreme Court and whether Mr. Kavanaugh was certain that he could do so regardless of his personal feelings. 

#Me Too means #You Too.

The divisions in America have become profound and passionate for many people who no longer see themselves as members of the same community or nation. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.") 

This feeling of estrangement and division may reflect something true of our historical moment. 

We may no longer all inhabit the same -- or even a similar -- "moral reality" if we ever have, or did, live in such a shared cultural "reality" as Americans. 

The United States of America has always been more of a construct or aesthetic and political-moral achievement than other countries since the nation is "constituted" by a set of fundamental organic documents that seek to articulate the core values which define "our" country and selves as Americans. 

Loss of those values as opposed to disputes about their meaning is also a dangerous loss of community. ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and, again, "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.") 

There is a real danger that the core values of U.S. society and, indeed, of Western civilization are being abandoned by many people who are not even consciously aware of doing so, if they are, and who may not perceive the dangers of this abandonment for themselves and their children. ("Where we are now.")

Abandonment of core values of reasoned debate and legal civility, for example, was on display at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, but much worse is the disdain for institutions and due process evident in some surprising sources entrusted with political power and high office during those same hearings. 

It is difficult to avoid feeling that the protesters being carried out of the U.S. Senate chamber are members of the same group that has now generated and packaged the doubtful allegations of sexual abuse or attempted rape made against Judge Kavanaugh and which may regard such tactics of personal destruction as merely "protest" by other means. 

This cannot be how we go about selecting American Supreme Court justices in the future. 

It is not a refutation of a prospective justice's jurisprudence to engage in a behind-the-back smear campaign against that person or effort at character assassination that could destroy his or her professional life even if the insults and allegations are eventually shown to have been based on lies motivated by hatred. 

Judge Kavanaugh has the right to confront his accuser and disprove her allegations. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.") 

If we accept that "it is all about power" and "everything is relative," ethically speaking, then it is only too obvious that reason and evidence as the criteria for successful debate, or any and all legal argument, may be abandoned and we may resort to disruption and obstruction, or even violence, ignoring one another's arguments and/or pleas for understanding. ("Charles Fried and William Shakespeare On Interpretation" and "Ronald Dworkin's Jurisprudence of Interpretation.") 

I doubt that a heterogeneous society committed for excellent reasons that the Framers of the Constitution understood very well to rationality in legal and administrative processes can continue to function efficiently under conditions of constant cultural warfare and political obstruction by either (or all) parties.

The experience of a civil war is not one that we should seek to repeat in our history.

To accept traditional jurisprudential values is to admit that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law. 

No one group may disrupt legal or political proceedings that are meant to apply results for everyone in the community even if opportunities for the expression of dissent are always available within the law or, democratically, at the ballot box. 

To engage in civil disobedience one must always be willing to accept the imposition of the legally prescribed penalty for violations of the applicable law or ethical standards. 

Most people in America do not adhere to fashionable so-called Left-wing views or the trendy MSNBC bromides that are often popular with me and readers of The Nation magazine. 

A cultural war waged by "multi-gendered" others and "queer theorists" or intellectuals (like me) who are democratic socialists is unlikely to succeed with middle America, nor to win presidential elections for Democrats, even if I happen to sympathize with the goals of the people seeking to change laws in a more progressive direction. 

Personal destruction of "opponents" (Judge Kavanaugh) may be a more "successful" strategy for discontented "activists," but it is unethical and hateful to regard persons' lives as mere collateral damage where the goal is to achieve a political victory at any price. 

Conservatives (even if they happen to be white men) have rights to be heard and represented or to be treated with fairness, respect, and common decency as well as some of our weird friends whose genuine sense of outrage I more than understand and sometimes even share. 

Neutral principles of ethics and laws, New Jersey, require consistency from all of us rather than a willingness to condemn the conduct of those we dislike in order to commit far worse offenses against them which we choose to disregard in order to cover many sins. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce" then "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.") 

All of us have the right to be safe from unwanted sexual attentions or assaults, to have our privacy and free speech and all rights respected by the state and/or by those with access to government technology or authority. ("What is it like to be plagiarized" and "An Open Letter to My Torturers 'Terry Tuchin' and 'Diana Lisa Riccioli'" then "An Open Letter to Cyrus Vance, Jr. Esq.") 

We may not be tortured, stolen from, insulted, plagiarized, censored, lied about, raped, assaulted with impunity by anyone, lesbian or legal official notwithstanding, anywhere in this country under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. 

If such horrible crimes are committed against anyone there is an immediate and overwhelming obligation imposed on legal officials guilty of such offenses or covering them up -- especially attorneys and judges who claim to be concerned with "ethics" -- to tell the full truth and ameliorate any harm done to victims rather lying and obstructing justice for years or seeking to further harm (or kill) the victims of these human rights violations so that the "problem" will go away for you. ("Menendez Charged With Selling His Office" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court" then "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House.")  

Every student and any other person has the right to be and/or "feel" safe and to be treated with respect regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender. ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies Chief Justice Rabner!") 

Professors are clearly equally entitled to due process and equal protection of all laws regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or any other "immutable characteristics" and despite their sometimes controversial political opinions. I say the same of candidates for positions on the judicial bench or U.S. Supreme Court. 

Mr. Kavanaugh did not surrender his humanity or Constitutional rights by being nominated for the nation's highest tribunal.  

Recognition of shared humanity is one place to begin new efforts at mutual understanding with the proviso that no one will be silenced or ignored, nor can anyone ever be treated as "collateral damage."

America has always been an ideal that we as flawed human beings will often fail to achieve. Historically, it is amazing how often we as a people have in fact risen to the standards found in the Constitution and, especially, in the Bill of Rights. 

I refuse to give up on the American experiment in self-governance and, yes, humanism. I am always inspired by a speaker's observation: 

"If it is true that America is a disappointment this is only because America is a hope."