Rolling Slander

Left: Protesters against the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. How do they feel now that they were revealed to be protesting innocent classmates? 

Against the backdrop of serious social issues on college campuses, the Columbia School of Journalism statement shows that academia is perfectly willing to turn a blind eye when members of the media abuse their position.

Even as President Obama has dubiously proclaimed that the path to a prosperous middle class is for every American child to  have access to a college education, news headlines are showing that this can often be a gateway to discrimination, physical violence, sexual assault, and racial tensions. In fact, judging by the incidents of the past few months, it may be just as well that the President weigh in on these issues, just as he entered the debate about police shootings. Well, maybe not if we want an unbiased opinion about it.

Let's look at a selection of those incidents:

• In March a chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity is shut down at the University of Oklahoma after a number of its brothers are caught on camera singing a racist song. This follows a pattern of similar incidents for SAE chapters across the US, including a sexual assault at Iowa State University.
• The Fisher vs. Texas lawsuit regarding affirmative action policies continues to bounce between federal appeals courts and the US Supreme Court.
• University of Kentucky students riot in Lexington following the school's April 5 loss in the Final Four tournament.
• A University of Virginia student is beaten by alcohol enforcement agents on March 18, an incident that may legitimately be one of police brutality.
• A UCLA Pre-Law student is scrutinized during a hearing for approval of her appointment to the school judicial board on the grounds of her affiliation with Jewish organizations, despite admissions that she is fully qualified.
• And the subject that this will focus on: Rolling Stone magazine publishes "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Erdely which claimed to expose in graphic detail a gang rape of a female student by frat brothers that occurred at the University of Virginia on September 28, 2012 from the viewpoint of the victim, known only as "Jackie". The publishing of that story led to the suspension of all fraternities. Even prior to the actual publishing, violent attacks and threats were reported against the fraternity's property, and demonstrations were mounted against it. However, in January 2015 the Charlottesville Police Department revealed that the events reported in the article could not be confirmed, and by January 30 UVA's president declared that it had been discredited. On April 5 the Columbia School of Journalism released a report that outlined all of the journalistic errors that were committed in writing, editing, and publishing the piece.

Men preventing sexual assaults

As a male graduate student, I sometimes am oblivious to the other experiences on my college campus, especially those of female students. I have only two courses this semester, both of which have only two women enrolled in them. My department currently has only one woman on the faculty. Last year there was an all-female group in my senior design course, and they were discouraged from forming as such for reasons that were never explained. The university has numerous events catered toward encouraging the entrance of women in engineering, yet to look at a lot of our average course populations they could easily appear to be an all-male religious seminary class.

Recently I had a casual conversation with a couple friends during which one, who I'll call Becca, said that she had to leave before dark. When I asked why before dark, she said that she was afraid to walk to her car once dusk fell due to the rumours of robberies and sexual assaults on our campus. I realized at that point that she had to deal with a contingency that I could not relate with. The best help I could offer her was to borrow a screwdriver to use as a gouging tool; campus escorts are already available, and she wasn't the type to ask for a dude to accompany her.

Just this week I advised my sister not to park too far away from campus once she started classes there. I later found out she was taking day classes, so the advice does seem ridiculous in retrospect. However, I am not alone among my friends; one of them had bought his sister mace in order to protect herself from an assault when she went to school.

Women preventing sexual assaults

Men are not threatened nearly as much with the threat of sexual assault as women, but we are affected as observers. During my military service I remember one of the women soldiers, a cook, had been gang assaulted by three acquaintances. She had to deal with the same stigmas about sluttiness and asking for it that many feminist advocates rightly criticize. But at the same time, the circumstances of her case were as such:

• She was invited to her friends' dorms at a late hour of night.
• She was then imbibed with vodka until becoming intoxicated.
• The three others then took advantage of her to a degree that was never revealed to the rest of us. We are not aware if they were simply caught in an improper state of undress, if she was forcibly raped, or somewhere in between.

I think that the small gestures that I and others have made are the best form of preventive measures for sexual assault. Our campus happens to offer women's self-defense classes as well. As independent people, women cannot be expected to seek shelter from their male colleagues and relatives in every situation. The best measures they can take are through their own decisions:

• Be aware of their surroundings.
• Not presenting themselves as a vulnerable target.
• Learning to defend themselves if needed.
• Not becoming intoxicated to the point where they are easy prey; that follows the same principle as not becoming a vulnerable target.
• Keeping a mobile device or whistle handy if they would need to call for help. 

Education through shame

Rather than promote the measures that I mentioned above, a lot of media outlets like the Huffington Post and MSNBC have chosen to talk about rape culture and how America must change that. This approach is destined to fail, because rape and sexual assault have been an element in every society since the beginning of mankind. The idea that rape can be eliminated by changing American culture is ridiculous; look at how well we have prevented white collar crimes by mandating business ethics courses. There is no need for more studies and debates on this matter, because in the end these crimes seem to be perpetrated under the same conditions. The best solution for women to avoid being taken advantage of . . . is to not arrive at a situation where they can be taken advantage of.

The pathetic attempt by the media to claim that a conversation needs to be held on how to cure America of its "rape culture" is just as moronic as Pres. Obama and Eric Holder's statements and inquiries into police shootings. In the end, the media cannot control the minds of sexual predators, nor can federal officials control the actions of individual law enforcement agents. On the contrary, as recent scandals show Obama and his staff are unable to control information leaks (Edgar Snowden), press leaks, and his own security (Secret Service indiscretions at home and abroad).

Who are the Fifth Estate accountable to?

Now finally to the case of Sabrina Rubin Erdely:

My impression is that it takes a certain type of person to go to a college campus, interview a claimed victim, present her version of events as true, not verify any of the details, and publish the story as fact in a magazine that relies on decades of prestigious journalism that has shaped our culture in many different fields.

I have watched the entire video of the press conference with Columbia School of Journalism officials Steve Coll (dean) and Sheila Coronel (academic dean). It is remarkable how despite all of their claims to professionalism they deliberately dodged the question of whether they would employ Sabrina Erdely themselves, even though at one point during the conference they actually admit that they know that the story as told by "Jackie" was false. Despite every opportunity that the journalists in the audience presented, these two distinguished paragons of the trade avoided giving the plain spoke response that was demanded: that "A Rape on Campus" was a feminist canard and Sabrina Erdely is a quack journalist.

It is very ironic that the University of Virginia has a student parody newspaper called The Yellow Journal. Yellow journalism was coined in the late 19th century to describe poorly researched or sensationalized reporting about current events, in particular the Spanish-American War. In those days, the newspapers were using their power to raise public support for a war in Latin America. Nowadays, their heir Sabrina Erdely used her forum to promote an agenda relating to Rape Culture.

What was the response of Rolling Stone and Erdely to the CSJ report and the clear contradiction of their article by all of the responsible authorities of UVA and Charlottesville PD? On Saturday they issued a retraction, a blanket apology (as Coronel was quick to mention in their defense), and no statement of any disciplinary action. They never apologized to the students and alumni that were portrayed in the article as perverted sex fiends, or to the university whose reputation was stained and suffered dip in applications. They never apologized to their duped readers. UVA President Teresa Sullivan rightly reproached the magazine for its portrayal of campus officials as "manipulative and callous", when in reality there is no evidence to suggest that any incident occurred or that any complaint had been filed. The fraternity chapter is now considering legal action against the magazine.

A proportional punishment

Sabrina Erdely has made a career out of claiming to be the best advocate for victims of sexual violence or discrimination. However, as a journalist she has long been one of the guardians of the supposed legitimate journalism. During the Stephen Glass controversy, when that journalist was caught fabricating entire stories in the early 2000s, Erdely called Glass a "sociopathic creep". This was somebody who had been her managing editor at the University of Pennsylvania newspaper. As of today Glass still has not repaired his career and reputation, and has even been denied admission to the California Bar on more than one occasion. 

The minimal response from Rolling Stone would have been the immediate firing of Erdely in January and an official audit of all of her stories. Instead, they've allowed all of their detractors to do that job by claiming that they were submitting her story for the CSJ to review. Since then, opponents of Erdely and her opinionated journalism have poked holes in numerous stories where she has completely misrepresented the facts, such as this one about her claims of gay teen suicides in Minnesota being linked to evangelical hatemongerers. Now that the doors have been blown off of her credibility, Erdely apparently has no remorse over the reputations that she's ruined, and therefore she should be held personally accountable to the people affected by her actions. In her apology, Erdely claimed that the past few months had been ". . . a brutal and humbling experience". Most of the three paragraph statement was about her challenges as a journalist covering rape. Apparently Sabrina Erdely now views herself as the real victim. Is that not the mark of a sociopathic creep, which is the type of epithet she used about Glass back in the day?

My message to the Palestine Poster Project about the previous post:

Dear PPPA,

I was viewing your web page today, and encountered a poster that you claimed was made by opponents of Israel that likened their behaviour to those of fascists, specifically the Italian fascist Forza Nova party.

 http://www.palestineposterproject.org/sites/default/files/stesso_stessa_pppa.jpg

 Although you state that the poster's origin and publicist is unknown, I'm sure you've done enough research to know that Fuorza Nuova actually does not support Israel, but is a loyal supporter of the cause of Gaza. In fact it publicised just yesterday a declaration that Israel is terrorist and opens it by saying "Yes, Forza Nuova is an anti-Zionist movement". You can understand it here even if you don't speak Italian:

http://www.forzanuova.org/comunicati/fiore-risponde-pacifici

Are you willing to acknowledge this error, because given the statements of FN leader Roberto Fiore it would seem very odd to place him in the same camp as the Israelis and you are mistakenly disregarding his support for Palestine.

Which side is more fascist? Maybe ask the Fascists.

Turkish fans assaulting a Mac. Haifa player during a game between the Israeli side and the French club Lille.

On pro-Palestinian image aggregator site Palestine Poster Project supporters of Gaza have gathered images of worldwide artwork in favour of the Palestinian cause. Among the images is the one below, which states in Italian that "Every Palestinian is a comrade, SAME ENEMY, SAME BARRICADE" (Barricata may also mean side in Italian). The project makes the claim that the Nordic cross on the lower right side of the image is meant to allude to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as "fascist", because it is a logo associated with the Italian neo-fascist Fuorza Nova political party as well as other likeminded movements throughout Europe. But what does it mean to be a fascist, and who bears the right to call someone else one? And is the Poster Project being truthful about this piece of art, or could it be misrepresenting the nature of the artwork.

Poster that Palestine Poster Project claims condemns Israel's fascist policies. In reality it is a Fuora Nuova poster in support of Palestine.

 But first, a note on fascism . . .

Since the end of WWII, the word fascism has become a common label used by all parties in any conflict to discredit the other side. Just one example that is close to home was the Vietnam War, where it was common for the North Vietnamese and American war opponents alike to call the US Military fascist due to the heavy civilian casualties of war in that nation. Domestic political debates become completely hostile and vicious when each side accuses the other of being a fascist, so that every politician from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama and every cause from pro-life activism to universal health care, has been framed as a fascist idea. The War on Terror has been justified partially because of the threat of "Islamofascism". 

What is the strictest definition of fascism? The Fascist Party was the Italian movement that stabilized Italy during the economic turmoil following World War I and reorganized its state under the direction of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini focused the symbolism of the state around him and an Italian identity dating back to the Roman Empire. Despite Mussolini's complete mismanagement of Italy's effort in the Second World War, there remain numerous Italians who to one degree or another see his regime as having saved Italy from communism, which is indeed one of the few lasting goals that it did achieve.

Why call someone a "fascist"?

Beyond the association with Mussolini, the implication of being fascist is that someone lacks even the most basic consideration for the weaker parts of society, such that they are willing to perpetrate the most immoral acts in order to achieve their vision of the world. More specifically, those who make the accusation usually do not refer to the original fascist state, Italy, but rather to the more emotionally upsetting template of Germany. This is because the German government's policies included policies of genocide and forced relocation against its enemy populations: Jews, Gypsies, political enemies, and Slavs. Yet in reality fascism in the most literal sense refers to belief in a one-party state, a corporate (state-administered) approach to economics, and nationalism. Mass murder is linked to fascism mostly due to events associated with it, and not its actual ideas.

 

Does this mean that fascism has lost its true definition, because it is such a useful accusation to make even in situations where the target of "fascist" does not believe in corporatism, one-party government, or other stated goals of fascism? In an ironic way, this question is solved because there have been since after WWII individuals and organizations that proudly believe in fascism and refute any accusations against its leaders during the war. In Europe, groups like Golden Dawn (Greece) and National Front (France) have major public support while simultaneously claiming that the Holocaust is a lie concocted by Zionists, Jews or the USA. In Italy Forza Nuova (New Force) is the largest party that remains faithful to the original fascist vision of Mussolini and the post-war ideologue Julius Evola.

Fascism and the Arab-Israeli wars

To document the involvement of fascist or associated far-right people with the Arab grievances against Israel would take an article in and of itself. The Grand Mufti of Mandatory Palestine and Arab nationalists in Iraq and Egypt were directly allied to Germany and Italy during WWII, and following the war Arab states sheltered former officials of the German regime.  The neo-fascist and neo-nazi movements throughout the west have with almost every opportunity actively dedicated their support to the Arab cause as shown by the following links to ARYANISM and the National Socialist Movement. The theory that the Holocaust was a fabrication meant to justify the founding of Israel and American support for it is a viewpoint that reinforces the positions of both European ultra-nationalists and Palestinians.

Fascism for Gaza

And here is where we get to THE POINT. The Palestine Poster Project is one of many small web pages that seeks to portray the current Israeli offensive against Gaza as a fascist programme. It is ironic that they caption the Italian photo with this explanation: 

"Curator's note: The symbol depicted in this poster is the fascist version of the Celtic cross used by the ultra-nationalist Forza Nuova party of Italy

The publisher is equating Zionism with the Forza Nuova party".

There's no more need to beat around the bush: This caption is a lie from the foundation to the roof. The poster was in itself produced and distributed by Forza Nuova. It is only one of the materials that this group of proud and unashamed fascists has disseminated in order to express its support for the Palestinian Arab people. Just take for example this video produced by the group during 2009's Operation Cast Lead, a previous round of Israel-Gaza war.

Convenient Lies

The Palestine Poster Project has only one reason to depict this small detail in the way that it has: Their cause is not served by being seen to draw support from a group that is openly fascist. They would rather declare their enemy fascist than acknowledge that their cause is a source of validation for the xenophobic and anti-Jewish views of Italians and other Europeans. This is not meant to disparage the Italian public in general because if they were supporting the views of the Fuorza Nuova it wouldn't be a party that fails on every occasion to obtain representation in the two houses of parliament in Rome. 

Although fascism is not an illegal ideology, the stigma attached to it makes any association with it negative. Therefore, the Poster Project found it more suitable to their agenda to depict this work of propaganda as a condemnation of fascism rather than an originally produced fascist poster.

Response

If this seems to you the reader as dishonest, you might want to distribute this breakdown to your social circle through Facebook or email. It is unlikely that a clearly impartial body like the Palestine Poster Project will issue a retraction, but the awareness caused by this incident may harm the credibility of this source among news readers. This issue will nevertheless be brought to their attention, and any support from you the reader would obviously be welcome.

Judging bad taste, Bob Costas style

Snyder & Shanahan, when they  thought the situation was under control.

The following is a copy of an email I sent to Shane French, host of Rover's Morning Glory. I've written Rover numerous times, and one of my criticisms of him is his attitude towards American Indian mascots in pro sports.

Yo Rover:

I was wondering why you didn't comment on the remarks of NBC Sports' Bob Costas yesterday night during the Dallas-Washington game. I've always been a huge Cowboys fan and part of being one is our rivalry with Washington. As you may have noticed I've written you before about how our baseball team should change its name and end its legacy of denial. I would say that by ridding the football team of the Redskins nickname we as followers of this rivalry, regardless of which side, would lose a symbolic element of it. 

And so be it. As Costas concluded, "no offense has been intended, but if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?” After a long meandering monologue, Costas finally made sense. In the past couple years I've been the target of slurs about my own religion and ethnicity on a daily basis, and I've admittedly responded sometimes with the same type of trash talk. Some would say it's racism; I say it's the price of living in a society where the hatred we once hid inside is now a form of self-expression. 

You're usually the type of radio host who says that politics should be left out of sports, but don't hold your breath. The Miracle on Ice, Tebow, John Rocker, and other events or people in sports have always had a significance that transcends X's and O's. Just last year Washington area writer Dave Sheinin wrote a book about Robert Griffin III and his being called Black Jesus by some people. How's that working out.

Every year since I was in elementary school the  important two dates of the year were when we would trade blows with a team that uses imagery of warrior savages blind with rage. They're not using Indian imagery because the Indians helped the Pilgrims or traded furs with colonists. If I turned around and rooted for Chief Wahoo or another Indian themed team, then what objection would I have to the team being called the Cleveland Christkillers? I think that a tradition that is intrinsically painful and degrading towards someone else doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt. That might be strange logic to someone who runs cactus soccer contests like you, but try to understand  this side of the argument.

Ramon Epstein

So there you have it, I'm backing up the Arch-Geek of sports commentators, Bob Costas, against that of one of the radio programmes I'm most addicted to. But when you're right you're right, and good for Costas. Unfortunately for Daniel Snyder, Mike Shanahan, RG3, and their cohorts, it's now clear that the great saviour from Baylor isn't enough to compensate for their team's crappy composition. Also, the mascot and name controversy are no longer fringe issues that Snyder can suppress. It's starting to snowball, and in truly ironic fashion the Redskins are being upstaged by the Oneida nation, and Indian tribe that numbers in the tens of thousands. Snyder, who like myself and many of his critics, is Jewish, pledged that he would NEVER change the team name. I'd say that Snyder is fighting for a fake cause with a disgraceful legacy. And I'll keep my eyes open for the next crack in his wall. . .

A nutrasweet year

The city streets are full of people going nowhere making time. . .

           The change from night to day is  really only hours. . .c
           it's just along the line can't you see the sign.  <Tightrope, by Jeff Lynne>

This evening finds me three days before the new year in my religion, Judaism. . . Yesterday we read the portion relating to the passing of the man considered the paragon of humility and wisdom, Moses. This is something we read annually as the new year approaches, and it brings closure to the saga of one of the most exceptional people who ever walked the earth. The above quote talks about people making time for nothing, but in Moses' case even the greatest human specimen had a limited window on earth to what he could and succumbed to mortality.

I sometimes try to imagine Moses as a person, and end up drawing a blank. This week a black studies professor at my school declared that Moses, along with virtually every other figure in scripture, was black. Does that really explain who he was? The legacy of this man was in his words and his acts, not in some superficial aspect of his appearance. 

The reason that I think of Moses today, is because of another unique aspect of his life,  one that I've found lacking in my own. It's become clear of late that I've failed to earn the trust of my peers. I go into my job, or my class, or some other activity, and I throw my best effort into it. Success eludes me, and my sleep is restless, because satisfaction is foreign to me.

I don't think that this internal problem translates into the image projected outward. In fact, it seems that I chronically need to prove to the rest of the world that I mean business. It seems that with most people I can't earn the status of being a trusted colleague, but only a service provider; someone to do the more mundane work, like editing a term paper or a programme code. I'll give a brief example. This summer I pitched an important project to two  students in my department, both of which have seen my work. I'll call them Jeff and Sharon.  The project is an idea from somebody much older than me that I respect and view as a mentor.

Jeff responded that he really was interested and would be up for it. Sharon also thought it had potential  but expressed reservations. She didn't think she was ready to commit to a group. When she told me this I took it at face value, knowing it was still over a month until the class was due to start. But as the weeks dragged on and there was no word back, I realized that I'd better start looking someplace else. I viewed it as a worse rejection to receive no reply than a negative one.

Contemplating this now, I can come to only one conclusion: My offer wasn't ignored because it was a bad project. Not because I have a reputation for poor work, either. I really think that the only strike against it was the fact that I am involved, and nothing else. Maybe Sharon thinks I tried to put the moves on her. I know, however, that my main need for her in the group would have been her design and solid mechanics skills. I pitched the project using ample topic information for her to investigate.

I think this issue is rather far from that of Moses facing imminent death, but it's moments like this that I wish I could have some of the trust that the Israelites placed in him. For forty years they relied on his judgment, and with few exceptions gave Moses the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't just craving power and prestige.I think that even in my modest station in life my credibility is low, and people second guess me.

The only recourse I have is my patience and the desire to defy those expectations. I hope that I've caused some people to regret their mistrust of me in the past, but it doesn't matter. It would stand to reason that I reciprocate this treatment to others around me, and I hope to correct that in the coming year.