I volunteer at the LBJ Library on Saturdays so not only do I spend a lot of mental time in the 1960’s but I’ve become infatuated with Lady Bird. An amazing and underrated 20th century figure … I highly recommend this podcast to get a sense of her life and relationship with LBJ …
I am always so conflicted on these topics. I am the only one in my family to even attempt college, so I have very little experience with campus life (I was like 27 when I attempted college the second time). But as a guy who was raised by women, part of my mind thinks we need protections for women. I have been around some absolute monsters over the years, and at a minimum I am on board with suspecting the men at first blush, that is for my specific idk, “cultural background”. However, the other part of my mind makes me think of the men in my family that came across some hall of fame level evil / insane women that essentially ruined them. Essentially no one comes out of it unscathed. Everyone has their own brand of problem that led to bad outcomes.
None of the women in my family were hothouse flowers. My mom damn near killed my dad with a cast iron skillet when he came home drunk and unruly, like something out of looney tunes :). But all the same, you gotta have something there to even the odds.
Either way it was a good episode, I was under the impression there was something about gender identity and sports that was making people upset, but I guess due process was the sticking point? It was either Mary Harrington or Kathrine Dee I think that said they thought the whole #metoo movement was essentially a primer for getting rid of due process. So maybe that is the narrative out there?
Yes, conflicted. It's decades in the rear view mirror for me, but in the prolonged adolescence of college there's a toxic strain dudes that think a young, inexperienced woman who is obviously too plastered to know what she's doing is fair game, and that is absolutely not OK.
But neither is it OK to take what could be life-altering punitive actions based on disputed circumstances, which is what expulsion is even it isn't criminal conviction. If the circumstances are even disputed. Some of the cases I've read about sound suspiciously like someone who regrets a boozy hook-up in which they were a willing participant.
I don't really know how relevant this would be on a campus, but to me it feels similar. A large amount of beatings that were handed out where I grew up were usually over women. More often than not it would be a family member (sister,daughter,mother) who would make an accusation. The target of that accusation would find himself punished regardless of the merits of the claim. It was just understood by most folks that if a lady said I guy pulled some shit, he was gonna get a beating. Undoubtedly plenty of “innocent” dudes got beat up, but at the end of the day a beating (even a usually brutal one) is punitive but not permanent. The “he said she said” discussion comes after the beating, and that debate plays itself out over time. Some guys get brought back into the fold, some don’t. Though with that set up the ladies involved know what is going to happen if they complain. They understand the power they wield, and its consequences, not only for the accused but for those doling out the punishment. Chances are if a guy is getting a beating he earned it. He might not have raped or assaulted someone, but he choose poorly either by the lady or by his attitude. It isn’t a perfect system (if you can even call it a system) but what it does do well is give the women levers to pull, or threaten to pull, when dealing with the occasional mouth breather. Lol, I have no idea if there is something to be had in all of that, but I just noticed this kind of thing (laws targeted towards a vulnerable group) tend to only be in place when the society fails to mind its own people, and build a world where consequences are vague and unmotivating. Sounds a lot like an elite college campus to me anywho.
I used to teach a college class on Title IX and its application to campus sexual assault and have followed the evolution of the policy since the Dear Colleague Letter. I always suspected the driving force behind the Devos era reforms was universities acting stealthily with the Trump admin because they were tired of being sued by wrongly accused students. I thought universities might work behind-the-scenes again to prevent Biden from reversing the Devos reforms. Johnson’s insight on this aspect of the reforms and their various iterations was illuminating. I’m still surprised that universities were not more influential in toning down Biden’s desired changes. It will be interesting to see what happens when there is a huge spike in lawsuits (again).
But then, Trump will probably be president by this time next year, and he will reverse the reversal and be called a rape apologist. So there’s that.
Sarah your cover story was amazing many twists and turns. I still think your article about things you are afraid to write about is your number 1.
I thought the title IX stuff start getting crazy with the Rolling Stone Article about the University of Virginia woman that turned out to be a sort of or maybe outright lie “A Rape on Campus”.
Y’all need to run a correction. They altered Title IX by forcing all schools receiving federal funding (all public schools) to treat biological males with gender dysphoria as if they are actually female. In every way. And Anyone who suggests things should be different, will be punished.
You probably hoped Biden didn’t embrace insanity at this level… but alas… he has.
Thank you, ladies, for jumping on this so quickly after the release of the regs.
I read the NYT article about it and felt it was about a fair as you would expect from them these days, but it didn't have the details that KC provided.
RE Title IX. Yeah, only true believers (aka fanatics) would write a policy memo when they know or should know the courts will rule against any college that tries to comply with the memo.
Betsy DeVos’s reforms were the single good thing to come out of TFG’s administration.
An extraordinarily important episode!
I volunteer at the LBJ Library on Saturdays so not only do I spend a lot of mental time in the 1960’s but I’ve become infatuated with Lady Bird. An amazing and underrated 20th century figure … I highly recommend this podcast to get a sense of her life and relationship with LBJ …
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-plain-sight-lady-bird-johnson/id1554132477
I am always so conflicted on these topics. I am the only one in my family to even attempt college, so I have very little experience with campus life (I was like 27 when I attempted college the second time). But as a guy who was raised by women, part of my mind thinks we need protections for women. I have been around some absolute monsters over the years, and at a minimum I am on board with suspecting the men at first blush, that is for my specific idk, “cultural background”. However, the other part of my mind makes me think of the men in my family that came across some hall of fame level evil / insane women that essentially ruined them. Essentially no one comes out of it unscathed. Everyone has their own brand of problem that led to bad outcomes.
None of the women in my family were hothouse flowers. My mom damn near killed my dad with a cast iron skillet when he came home drunk and unruly, like something out of looney tunes :). But all the same, you gotta have something there to even the odds.
Either way it was a good episode, I was under the impression there was something about gender identity and sports that was making people upset, but I guess due process was the sticking point? It was either Mary Harrington or Kathrine Dee I think that said they thought the whole #metoo movement was essentially a primer for getting rid of due process. So maybe that is the narrative out there?
Yes, conflicted. It's decades in the rear view mirror for me, but in the prolonged adolescence of college there's a toxic strain dudes that think a young, inexperienced woman who is obviously too plastered to know what she's doing is fair game, and that is absolutely not OK.
But neither is it OK to take what could be life-altering punitive actions based on disputed circumstances, which is what expulsion is even it isn't criminal conviction. If the circumstances are even disputed. Some of the cases I've read about sound suspiciously like someone who regrets a boozy hook-up in which they were a willing participant.
I don't really know how relevant this would be on a campus, but to me it feels similar. A large amount of beatings that were handed out where I grew up were usually over women. More often than not it would be a family member (sister,daughter,mother) who would make an accusation. The target of that accusation would find himself punished regardless of the merits of the claim. It was just understood by most folks that if a lady said I guy pulled some shit, he was gonna get a beating. Undoubtedly plenty of “innocent” dudes got beat up, but at the end of the day a beating (even a usually brutal one) is punitive but not permanent. The “he said she said” discussion comes after the beating, and that debate plays itself out over time. Some guys get brought back into the fold, some don’t. Though with that set up the ladies involved know what is going to happen if they complain. They understand the power they wield, and its consequences, not only for the accused but for those doling out the punishment. Chances are if a guy is getting a beating he earned it. He might not have raped or assaulted someone, but he choose poorly either by the lady or by his attitude. It isn’t a perfect system (if you can even call it a system) but what it does do well is give the women levers to pull, or threaten to pull, when dealing with the occasional mouth breather. Lol, I have no idea if there is something to be had in all of that, but I just noticed this kind of thing (laws targeted towards a vulnerable group) tend to only be in place when the society fails to mind its own people, and build a world where consequences are vague and unmotivating. Sounds a lot like an elite college campus to me anywho.
I used to teach a college class on Title IX and its application to campus sexual assault and have followed the evolution of the policy since the Dear Colleague Letter. I always suspected the driving force behind the Devos era reforms was universities acting stealthily with the Trump admin because they were tired of being sued by wrongly accused students. I thought universities might work behind-the-scenes again to prevent Biden from reversing the Devos reforms. Johnson’s insight on this aspect of the reforms and their various iterations was illuminating. I’m still surprised that universities were not more influential in toning down Biden’s desired changes. It will be interesting to see what happens when there is a huge spike in lawsuits (again).
But then, Trump will probably be president by this time next year, and he will reverse the reversal and be called a rape apologist. So there’s that.
Sarah your cover story was amazing many twists and turns. I still think your article about things you are afraid to write about is your number 1.
I thought the title IX stuff start getting crazy with the Rolling Stone Article about the University of Virginia woman that turned out to be a sort of or maybe outright lie “A Rape on Campus”.
Anyway, great interview.
Y’all need to run a correction. They altered Title IX by forcing all schools receiving federal funding (all public schools) to treat biological males with gender dysphoria as if they are actually female. In every way. And Anyone who suggests things should be different, will be punished.
You probably hoped Biden didn’t embrace insanity at this level… but alas… he has.
https://1819news.com/news/item/jessica-taylor-women-should-be-furious-about-bidens-title-ix-changes
Just read the Texas Monthly piece and it was wonderful. So many emotions and such a beautiful metaphor for our struggles.
Thank you, ladies, for jumping on this so quickly after the release of the regs.
I read the NYT article about it and felt it was about a fair as you would expect from them these days, but it didn't have the details that KC provided.
Again, thank you.
RE Title IX. Yeah, only true believers (aka fanatics) would write a policy memo when they know or should know the courts will rule against any college that tries to comply with the memo.