The Cornell Daily Sun is reporting that Cornell Law School has started a Title IX investigation over a report that some male law students were “ranking women on their appearance.” What is most striking is that this was all done in a private group chat. Men and women have been ranking each other by looks since time immemorial. On October 5, Dean Eduardo M. Peñalver said in an October 5th email to law students that Cornell’s Title IX Office is investigating the matter, adding that “ranking women on their appearance is inherently degrading,” adding that it was “childish and unprofessional.” I agree that it is childish and unprofessional, but I still question the need for a Title IX investigation into the private correspondence of students over the attractiveness of other students.
Peñalver has asked for the matter to be raised in first-year classes and to tell students that “the behavior may well violate” the University’s Policy 6.4. The policy states defines two of the violations in this way:
“Bias activity: An action of mistreatment or incivility (verbal, physical, in written or digital form) taken by an alleged offender/s and motivated in whole or part by an actual or perceived aspect of diversity/identity of the harmed or impacted party. Identity may include, but is not limited to, ability, age, ancestry or ethnicity, color, creed, gender, gender identity or expression, immigration or citizenship status, marital status, national origin, neurodiversity, race, religion, religious practice, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or weight.
. . .
Sexual misconduct: A broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature designated as prohibited conduct by the applicable procedures under this policy.”
Both terms are “broad” to a troubling degree. “Incivility” that is motivated even in part “by an actual perceived aspect of diversity/identity” is endlessly flexible as a standard. I have previously objected to both such open ended definitions and the lack of due process often shown by university in adjudicating such claims.
There is no question that such ranking is unprofessional and uncivil. However, that should warrant a visit with the Dean and strong condemnation to the students, who would likely remove the listing. That will not stop students from judging each other on the basis of their appearance.
My greatest concern is the exercise of authority over private chats. If this were a listing that was circulated throughout the student body, that would be another matter. However, if this was a private exchange between law students, the concerns flip over the role of the law school. It could come down to the meaning of a “private chat.” There are chat rooms that are part of a broader circulation on social media and sites. There is no indication of a broad distribution here but that would certainly raise issues of the students’ conduct if it were a law school wide chat room.
What do you think?
Maybe they should use a bell curve!
Independent Bob – tell me the lesbians are not rating those same woman exactly the same way. Now, what is going to happen when they find the lesbian list?
This shows strongly why the role of investigating and prosecution should remain with the present criminal justice system and not bureaucrats, apparatchiks, and academics. The school is using the “investigation” process as a form of punishment. No doubt the same people who ordered the prosecution were the ones to run straight to the school newspaper to shame these men and cast them as an example.
Those on campus who opposed this investigation should post Hillary photos, like the one shown often on this blog, on their tee shirts. The phrase underneath:
Ugly, Ugly Bo Buggly.
If I was one of the accused, and if this progressive twat doofus Penalver allows rap/hip hop music on campus, he’d have some legal ‘splainin’ to do Re. his hypocrisy.
My point exactly! Double standards of behavior.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?”
Don’t people have grandmothers to teach them stuff anymore?
Good grief!
“On October 5, Dean Eduardo M. Peñalver said in an October 5th email to law students that Cornell’s Title IX Office is investigating the matter, adding that ‘ranking women on their appearance is inherently degrading,'”
It’s only degrading to those ranked low on the scale.
Methinks the dean is an affirmative action product.
Dean Eduardo M. Peñalver said… that “ranking women on their appearance is inherently degrading”…
Only to those that are ranked on the low end of the scale.
Methinks the dean is probably the product of an affirmative action program.
On October 5, Dean Eduardo M. Peñalver said…that “ranking women on their appearance is inherently degrading”.
Only if the rankee is low on the list.
Doubtmeister – no woman who got a 10 is complaining about this ranking list, they are posting it on Facebook. 😉
Apparently I wanted to make my point so badly, I had to post it three times and under multiple names. 🙂
So if a guy uses the phrase, ‘double bagger’, it’s not OK; but if a girl uses it, it is?
Micro-aggression alert! Blog administrator – please investigate this comment by isaacbasonkavitch that intentionally communicates hostility, prejudice, slights and insults toward marginalized ‘ugly’ people. Butt-Fugly people have a right to visit this blog and not feel offended and micro-agressed. Resist!
Stop the madness. Vote Republican in November people!
TBob
The Democrats have their fringe, their idiots, their baggage. The Republicans have their fringe, their idiots, their baggage. Vote for the lesser of the two evils, Democrat. The shortcomings of the Democrats are of a frivolous nature that irritates but does little harm. The social advances far outweigh the embarrassments of these idiots in high academic places. The shortcomings of the Republicans are anything but frivolous. While both parties suck at the teats of the oligarchs and are manipulated by them and special interests, only the Republican Party comes up with a President who is the chief oligarch, the most prolific liar, tax cheat, and all around buffoon. The system is at fault as it champions an oligarchy instead of a representative democracy. The system, the only one of its kind, is bought and paid for by a select few. Until that is addressed and stopped, as has been done in the more advanced nations with real democracies, we will be given, not the best of the best, but the purchased. Trump campaigned on being the only one who could dismantle the oligarchical system or swamp and he turned out to be the champion of that very muck. It’s a question of direction and degrees. The Republicans represent the direction backwards and are heading there at an unprecedented speed. The Democrats represent the direction forward, as in evolution or progression, and can only go as fast as the system allows. The system is at fault; but the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils for now, until money is taken out of the equation and replaced by intelligence, patriotism, and responsibility. The system as it is is a treason.
You know that Trump is really a New York liberal, right? Who used to hang with Schumer and Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all the rest of them, right? And you know that Ivanka and Jared, and probably all the rest of the Trumps are NY libs…you know this, right?
Trust Trump, man. The country will be more than okay with Trump at the helm. And we will move forward without having the Progressive Socialists in charge. We don’t need crazy Democrat mob rule right now.
In my opinion, the country couldn’t do any better than having someone like Trump in charge right now. I still thank god every day that he kept the Clintons out of the White House and spared the country from certain disaster with a totally incompetent corruptocrat like Hillary at the helm.
And if you doubt what I’m saying, just look at how she ran the State Dept. She was just stripped of her security clearance.
And look at how she ran her campaign. If that’s how she ran a billion dollar campaign, she doesn’t deserve a shot at running the country. And fortunately, thanks to Trump, she didn’t get to put her greedy, incompetent hands anywhere near the levers of power.
Vote Republican in November!
Yet, I bet a bunch of black male students could call women “bitchez and ho’s”, play “baby daddy” to them, knock them up and skedaddle, and our Priggish Penalver would have nothing to say. Except maybe Black Girl Magic.
Really people, if there is such a thing as White Privilege, this is it. Dictating that everybody must follow the Democratic Party Narrative. Everyone must live their life to the Democratic Party script that sets out their various roles.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Do we, or do we not have freedom of expression in this nation? Just how far will we allow the deranged left intrude on our rights before there is a necessary and severe push back to restore the initial essence of our nation as expressed by our founding fathers?
Why divide into left and right topics on which most people agree? We agree that freedom of speech/expression makes sense. It’s just the definitions of “speech” and “expression” where there is disagreement. Is money “speech”? Is toxic masculinity “expression”? Sweeping generalizations to demonize groups of people is not helpful.
“It’s just the definitions of “speech” and “expression” where there is disagreement”
Samantha, it seems that you wish to ” intrude on our rights” by defining free speech as only that speech you approve of.
I wonder if those males were also drinking beer as they sat around ranking female looks? Were they gorging on pizza with too many toppings too? Why wasn’t someone limiting the calorie count and size of their pizza? Do you see what happens when males are given too much freedom in the privacy of their own group chat? It’s out of control.
So let’s investigate them for being guys ogling girls, gorging on pizza and drinking too much beer. Because it may offend someone.
What about the gender non-conforming crowd? Or the gender-fluid crowd? Who gets to rate their looks? Isn’t that discriminatory to leave them out of the male/female rating game?
Women (and the other 67 genders who might be also be offended by this degradation) must rise up and put a stop to it. Someone stop the madness!
I would use the Brett Kavanaugh defense: “I like beer. I drank beer. I still drink beer. I like beer. Is there something wrong with that?”
In Junior High we had these things called “slam books”. A student’s name was at the top of each page, and the book was passed around – you could write anything you wanted (anonymously) about the student. This was a female invention – the guys weren’t excited about it – but the girls would read it with fascination. Girls are really pissed off over their inferiority. But who will say it?
Never saw one myself. A fellow of my acquaintance who was in junior high in New Mexico ca. 1964 told me they were current there.
Our elite universities have gone mad. It’s embarrassing to the alumni that graduated at a time when PC culture wasn’t strangling normal development.
No, they’re run by jerks. The trustees could repair this problem, but they won’t.
What might be beneficial would be for state law to require that the trustees of all institutions not specifically dispensed be elected in a postal ballot supervised by the state board of elections.
1. The electorate would be those degree holders who are registered to vote in the State of New York.
2. Aspirants would be drawn from that electorate.
3. The elections would be held quadrennially and all trustees would be elected at the same time.
4. An aspriant would register with the state board by placing a monetary deposit and a 600-word statement. The statements would be complied into a prospectus and mailed out, along with a printed ballot, to the electorate. Ballots returned in the mail would be tabulated in Albany.
5. The number of trustees on a board would be determined by a formula of which the number of the electorate was an argument and would generally be about 9 for an institution of average size, with 5 a minimum.
6. Ideally, the printed ballot would be variable, with as many stereotypes as candidates who qualify for the ballot and with each aspirant having an equal chance to occupy each place in the order of candidates on the ballot. (With low information electorates, there’s always a danger that the election will be determined by the numbnutzes who just mark the first five names on the ballot).
7. Ordinal balloting (‘ranked choice’ they call it in Minneapolis) would be the order of the day, tabulated according to the Condorcet method.
8. The oath of office of a school trustee would incorporate an explicit acknowledgement that the trustees are the parties responsible for the academic integrity of the school and for proper disciplinary rules.
9. State law would make explicit that disciplinary manuals incorporate contractual obligations, and that only trustees may adopt them.
10. State law would make explicit that trustees choose the president, that trustees have plenary discretion to supervise hiring of officers one and two steps from the president, and to impose their choice over his objection; and that appointment to full professor, the award of tenure, the award of endowed chairs, and hiring-to-tenure require an explicit vote of the trustees.
11. State law would make explicit that tenure does not protect a faculty member from dismissal if his program is dissolved. Trustees would have plenary discretion to dissolve any program, faculty, or department, and discharge its faculty.
12. State law would make explicit that only the trustees may adopt an institutional budget, approve a bond issue, or approve the issuance of commercial paper.
13. State law would make explicit that athletic coaches, remedial tutors, music tutors, laboratory instructors, and workshop instructors are quasi-faculty, not regular faculty.
14. State law would make explicit that clinical faculty are expected to be gainfully employed in their profession and found only in vocational faculties.
15. State law would make explicit that faculty have three ranks according to the length of their contract: Intructor (< 7 semesters), Lecturer (< 14 semesters), and Professor (continuous tenure). "Visiting lecturer" and "visiting professor" would be courtesy titles granted to instructors who had reached a certain rank elsewhere.
16. State law would make explicit that faculty compensation is to be computed according to a formula which begins with a baseline and adds increments according to the number of courses and sections taught in the previous 12 months.
17. State law would make explicit that in a given department, the same formula be used for all employed bar those for which the trustees have approved special dispensations (hiring to tenure, endowed chairs), but that different departments may have different formulae to account for market conditions.
18. State law would make it explicit that no more than 38% of the regular faculty be tenured at any one time, that tenure never be granted to someone under the age of 45, and that tenure never be granted to someone who has had less than 12 years service at an institution (bar hiring-to-tenure approved by the board).
19. State law should make it explicit that retirement shall be mandatory on which ever of the following dates is later: eligibility for Medicare, eligibility for full Social Security, and 35 years of FTE contribution to TIAA-CREF.
20. State law should adopt a glossary with capsule discriptions which specify permissible degree programs and concentration programs within degree programs for institutions subject to the laws of the state, public and private.
21. State law should require that all institutions publish an audited data sheet which indicates the median board scores and attrition profile of each of a set of coarse demographic categories among the student body, with criminal penalties assessed on the institution and individuals employed in it for lying.
22. State law should require that all institutions publish an audited data sheet which indicates the median board scores and attrition profile of each of a set of coarse demographic categories among faculty hired, with criminal penalties assessed on the institution and individuals employed in it for lying.
I remember the old criminal prosecution in the South of a black man for assaulting a white woman – although he was nowhere near her. It was “assault by ogle.”
No you don’t. You’re just making stuff up.
A 3 inch thick layer of silicon grease has been added to the slippery slope with this little Constitutionl busting move. The thought police have criminalized opinion and truth and are violating of First Amendment Rights of these students. This needs to be challenged.
Oh and for the record, before it is criminalized everywhere, I want to say
Kate Upton is 10,000 times hotter than rosie “woof woof” o’donnell
Oh…No…Title IX 😱
Does that mean we Girls can’t tease about a Mans shoe size! 💋
I have heard tell that there used to be a day when a strict talking to the offenders on conduct unbecoming gentlemen used to suffice. Apparently, our day lacks the folks capable of giving the strict talking to.
On the flip side, men are naturally going to notice women who are attractive. While ranking their attractiveness or discussing them with other men often turns into “locker room: talk, it probably shouldn’t merit a formal investigation unless accompanied by other misconduct. At its worst standing alone, it is conduct decidedly unbecoming gentlemen.
Cornell recedes into the Leftist PC abyss. Get your transfer forms in guys. The war on males is in full throttle. Of course, nothing about this in the legacy propaganda media.
Are they complaining because of their ranking? They think they should be higher? Or lower?