Naughty Boys at Harvard
Harvard Men’s Soccer Team Is Sidelined for Vulgar ‘Scouting Report’ the NYT headline says.
I object to the Harvard University's punitive action on these grounds: Women are not a fragile, vulnerable gutless population lacking sufficient fiber to withstand sexual discourse. They might, for instance, have returned the favor and rated the men's team. They might have ridiculed the men at meets. They might have organized a PR offensive.
Harvard is trying to reshape male/female interactions to fit egalitarian goals. I get that. Whether that is possible, I don't know. Neither am I sure that these elite-institutional-designed goals are 100% desirable.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. [In 2012] —They rated the women on a sexual appeal scale of 1 to 10, including explicit descriptions of their physical traits and musings about the women’s preferred sexual positions.
“Doggy style,” they said of one. “The Triple Lindy” of another. Of another whom they perceived as “manly,” they wrote: “Not much needs to be said on this one, folks.”
This was not a presidential candidate caught in an unguarded moment. This was the men’s soccer team at Harvard, one of the most prestigious and privileged universities in the world, writing about counterparts on the women’s soccer team.
The University canceled the rest of the season for the men’s team — two games — and said the team, which was in striking distance of winning its conference and a spot in the N.C.A.A. tournament, must forfeit any postseason play.
I object to the Harvard University's punitive action on these grounds: Women are not a fragile, vulnerable gutless population lacking sufficient fiber to withstand sexual discourse. They might, for instance, have returned the favor and rated the men's team. They might have ridiculed the men at meets. They might have organized a PR offensive.
Harvard is trying to reshape male/female interactions to fit egalitarian goals. I get that. Whether that is possible, I don't know. Neither am I sure that these elite-institutional-designed goals are 100% desirable.
Comments (59)
Yeah, as if that's an unusual thing for boys/men to do. The PC/SJW movement is insane.
Speech is not assault [excepting slander, lying, and incitement--hate speech codes to the contrary]. Calling someone sexually attractive--or not attractive--is allowable, even if framed crudely. We regularly attack each other verbally for being stupid, moronic, imbecilic, jackasses, idiots, crooks, jerks, assholes, pricks, fairies, whores, old hags, and so on and so forth--and surprisingly, everyone survives. Maybe we don't like being called a cocksucking fairy, but it isn't a fatal wound.
The relationships of those with more power and less power is not going to be egalitarian, no matter how much social engineering is undertaken.
My guess is that the soccer teem is being punished for a failure of good manners and not for a failure of good character. The definition of manners has changed, certainly. Where once the 'scouting report' wouldn't have been worth mentioning, it is now punishable--not because the team displayed a quality of character that might make them unemployable by Fortune 500 companies. (F500 companies might be concerned about character and manners, too, but less strenuously than Harvard--just a guess.)
People with bed-rock sound character are usually not inconsiderate slobs, but they might be. And we know that lots of people who are charlatans have very nice manners.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The point is that rating someone on a fuckability scale is demeaning and only serves to further the sexualized states of mind many moderns have, which is detrimental to a more moral society. I'd like not to be judged by my looks, but by my character. I don't need to be a woman to think in such a way, either.
Anyway, this isn't about Harvard or its students, its about grinding a boring old axe.
I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I'm not in favor of ANY speech restrictions. I'm a "free speech absolutist."
Also, re physical abuse, etc., I think (more generally--I'm not just talking about male-female issues, but all physical abuse, assault etc. issues) both that (a) punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and (b) just as with speech, we've gotten carried away with thinking that the slighest nonconsensual actions should lead to arrest, etc. I think that if we're not talking about something that's going to leave observable physical effects on the victim at least 2-3 days later, it shouldn't be prosecutable. We shouldn't be arresting someone just because they poked someone on the arm or something like that.
I'm kind of not pro prosecution/punishment/incarceration/enforced control etc. in general--though I do agree that people who commit violent crimes, especially where there's reason to believe that they might recur, need to be separated from the rest of the population somehow, and I'm not against even one-off criminals having to make restitution to victims/victims' families somehow.
One day I hope to look at my desk at work and to my life generally and find that the most significant question facing me is whether some college kids are numerically rating women's asses.
I see no reason to make this about what women can or can't handle.
I know I wouldn't like a group of women describing me in that way. And I am aware it does happen- it's not as if women are faultless in that respect. I'd be more willing to accept a general rule like: both sexes have a responsibility to treat sex with respect. The behavior just shows a profound disrespect for people.
Nice!
Very quotable (so I did).
Why wouldn't you like that?
I just wouldn't.
Of course Facebook was founded only a decade ago on blokes rating women, so I still don't fel feminism is on a rising tide quite yet.
I think you need to explain this a little more. Are you just saying that there shouldn't be any laws against saying something? Are you saying that I should be able to insult my boss without fear of being fired?
It's not just about law in my view, but of course law is part of it.
I wouldn't have any laws against speech period.
And I'm not in favor of social sanctions on speech, either, such as being fired just because you insulted your boss.
Quoting csalisbury
Granted, men behaving badly has become an axe nearly ground down to the handle during the election campaign. But sex isn't the primary issue here. The issue is the control of speech -- which Terrapin Station identified.
True enough: the limits of free speech have been hashed over for a long time. But the issue is regularly refreshed by authorities who wish to suppress various kinds speech for a variety of reasons. Unregulated speech is generally very inconvenient for the establishment (however and in whoever the establishment is constituted). The powerless of yesterday gain some power today and immediately set about fencing in "inappropriate" expression.
For example, gay people were an oppressed minority into the 1970s. In the 1980s there were gay organizations serving gay people and run by gay people. It didn't take long at all for the leadership of the gay establishment to dictate limitations on expression. In a memorable instance, a gay executive (classic: always suited, well educated WASP) leveled the charge of undermining progress and causing trouble against "radical fairies", cross dressers, and various politically deviant homosexuals.
Why does this reversal happen? Because people with even a measly bit of power jealously protect their mole hill of high ground. If a lot of power is involved then the restrictions have wider application.
So restrictive speech codes arise again and again. Sometimes it is a minority group that is protected, sometimes it is a minority group that is targeted. Either way, even if vulnerable groups are discomfited, restrictions on free and open speech should be resisted.
that is a good point. There is virtually no free speech at all in the workplace, and no free speech way short of insulting the boss. As it happens, many bosses are richly deserving of insult, but...
Normally, I tend to favour workers rights, but I think when you sell your labour carrying dinners to diners, or whatever, you are selling your freedom of speech as well as your freedom of movement, so I support a bosses' right to dispense with potty-mouths and layabouts equally.
Seems worse with them, and they were the bosses. I do agree though, that you are pretty much contractually obligated to do certain things, and act certain ways or you'll be fired. I was fired from my parking booth job, because they were bought up by a bigger company, and they introduced terrible ridiculous uniforms, that I refused to wear for a couple of weeks. I wore the sweater, but not the pants or tie. They wouldn't give me an inch though, and finally gave me the ultimatum, so I left.
This basically then gives room to hypocrisy that can then create resentment of a politically correct culture, hostility towards it.
The other thing is of course that especially in the US, sex scandals of any calibre sell. Especially when it's some elite establishment, be it an Ivy League university like Harvard or a military school like West Point. It tells something when for example the topic of this thread was picked up not only by New York Times and other US newspapers, but also British tabloids too.
Any institution, fearing it will be seen itself as being sexist (racist, misogynist etc.) in the media and in the public eye, will have to react basically quite dramatically to the issue.
Has the PC culture gone out of control? I doubt it. Yet sometimes you can notices how it all does have an effect. A good example I think can be seen in a funny clip of Triumph, the insult comic dog going to a campus and interviewing freshm... correction, first year students. The students do not know at all how to respond to the lewd insult comedy,if they should laugh or not.
I'd say the mere fact that there is a PC (and SJW) culture means that it's out of control.
Wanting people to exhibit better manners and even complaining about that are fine. But any draconian approach to that, including legislation, of course, as well as social ostracization, public shaming, etc., would be anything but good manners.
You may blame this on lawyers if it pleases you. I don't care, and neither does the law, my evil master! The law RULES!
That being said. If they are contractually obligated to protect the freedom of speech of their students than they cannot punish the team for what was said as a private conversation amongst the team. Because this "report" was never distributed to the womens team it is not harrasing speech. So it is also not unprotected speech.
I am perfectly ok with anyone expressing their sexual desire or thoughts in an manner that is allowed by the constitution. This isnt 1984 and we don't have thought police.
I could see a case being made for laws against screaming "ALLAHU ACKBAR I HAVE A BOMB IM GONNA KILL EVERYONE" in the middle of a crowded plane ride.
What if there's no laws against masking school shooter threats to a school? Wouldn't there be constant false alarms because tonnes of students would make them just to avoid a test?
What about if a policeman says he has a warrant to search your property? Or that if you leave an interrogation room you will be placed under arrest? Or he reads you your Miranda rights but alters it in some way such as "you do NOT have the right to remain silent". But he's just using his free speech.
What if you ask your doctor if the drug he is prescribing has any side effects, and he says no even if it does because he profits off it?
Shouldn't a judge be obligated to tell the truth? What if he just doesn't like you and says you're sentenced to death, even though you'll be released the next day?
Should there be no legal consequences for a mayor issuing a false hurricane warning just to watch the city evacuate?
Should a teacher be allowed to teach creationism as fact in a public school?
When people talk about free speech I think they generally that one should be able to express whatever *opinion or view* they have without facing legal repercussions. And not that you can literally say whatever you want in any situation without restriction.
I mean that's so open to abuse. What if you don't understand the law, ask a policeman and he lies to you so that you break the law and he arrests you?
Probably. The Tonight Show had a running joke making fun of football players. Apparently a number of the joked upon didn't take it well and developed a bit of hatred for Jimmy Fallon. And that with no mention of favorite sexual positions
I can already anticipate the answer to this - "Only the men should get suspended because patriarchy." But that old argument is slowly running out of juice, so-to-speak. Eventually, people will get tired of hearing it.
Strawman.
Quoting Mongrel
It seems the First Amendment issue has been raised contra sexual harassment/discrimination claims when professors indulge in pontificating about women, but I doubt it would serve well when employed regarding the speech of boorish male college athletes; even those of Harvard. The First Amendment defense hasn't seem much success against hostile work environment claims in the ordinary workplace, it seems, but colleges are, of course, very special places.
The issue with that is the women's team didn't even know about the "report" until about 10 days ago so it most definitely isn't "harrasing " speech. If the "report " was published each year and handed to the womens team then i could understand it being harrasing. But dont the supposed "victims " need to know they are being victimized? Or nah?
The question I thought was: What is it appropriate for Harvard to do now that this is unquestionably known to it to have taken place? There may be no viable claim arising out of the conduct at this time, but Harvard has exposure to future claims (not merely those arising from this practice) if it does nothing as it will appear to tolerate the conduct, or even seem to encourage it. I think any competent lawyer would advise Harvard to take action of some kind--at the least to reprimand and also make it clear such conduct is improper and won't be tolerated in the future.
Well, that's the way manners actually do change. If someone behaves really rudely, there is legislation starting with slander etc. Typically the person is ostracized who behaves badly.
Now what I think happens with "SJW & PC-culture" is that some groups or communities simply want to influence and change just what is seen as correct (and what isn't) when the popular position is still something else. Naturally they want to portray their cause as important as basic human rights. This of course feels like a PC culture to many. Here usually our customs and society has developed to be more permissive and less connected to religion... at least in the West.
But the trend can change, who knows.
That's probably true. However, I'm not an "average person" in that regard.
One of the repercussions of my view that I think is a big benefit is that we wouldn't put so much weight on the mere fact that anyone is claiming (or threatening, or promising, etc.) whatever they are. People would start to get into the habit of being skeptical, getting a variety of opinions from a variety of sources, doing research, and having more rigorous epistemic standards for believing things.
At any rate, it's kind of patronizing to assume that I just hadn't thought about any "difficult cases" prior to settling on my view, right?
Here it is:
I've seen this sort of thing occurring more and more for the last several years.
It's a flabbergasting contradiction for we men: We live in a time when women are in appearance and behavior more sexy and sexualized than ever before, while men are simultaneously being judged more and more harshly for being attracted to women and expressing it in any way not fit for daytime T.V., even if it's harmless and private speech. I'm kind of sick of the hypocrisy to be honest, but that's modern western culture for you; an insecure tit-monger who hides it's inexhaustible lust with an over-compensated sense of self-righteous purity.
No I'm not complaining about or asking "why can't men get away with sexual harassment anymore?", I'm complaining that somewhere in our pursuit of equality between the sexes, we completely missed the part about holding one-another to the same ethical standards, at least when it comes to anything sex related. Men have always lived in a world where hurt feelings are one's own problem; something to be dealt with personally. But now somehow, especially in regards to sex, feelings are suddenly the be all and end all of social interaction. Consider the following interaction:
Man: "Hi, want to fuck?"
Woman: "No."
Man: "Well fuck you then bitch."
By most measures of "feeling", this interaction seems to constitute an example of sexual harassment. If a cop was standing right next to them, we might expect them to do something in response.
Now imagine the same interaction with reversed gender roles...
It's no longer sexual harassment, or at least the "feels harmful" kind, according to my "feelings"...
This is precisely the kind of shoddy moral intuition that is making it's way into contemporary western "thought", especially in universities, on social media, and many other platforms where preserving reputation is a first priority. Somewhere along the line we confused the human desire to be free from negative or offensive feelings with a moral obligation to never do or say anything anyone might find offensive. You can find this sort of rhetoric everywhere now; "micro-aggression" was coined to describe how individual hurt feelings amounts to the mass systemic oppression of X,Y, or Z group of people. "Safe spaces" are strictly about protecting people's feelings from the slings and arrows of emotional confrontation.
Some male Harvard Soccer students wrote some stuff about some female Harvard soccer students on a google doc that was apparently publicly accessible since 2012, but not publicly known until very recently...
It's Harvard right? We ought to expect them to have the highest standards! Hence the punitive measures taken against the team. We simply cannot tolerate young and inexperienced students exploring their sexuality in such a way that might indirectly lead to hurt feelings one day, lest the facade of purity fall down. In reality everyone is in a scramble because of the irrationally amplified gravitas of some "hurt feelings" which may or may not have resulted from a group of teenagers daring to apply a numeric label to the sexual attractiveness of some of their female counterparts (people who they are biologically wired to be attracted to).
"Feel" is the word of 2016...
I agree with your response. "Felt uncomfortable" is the new "been molested".
"Post-truth": Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy.
I hadn't heard this yet, but I really wasn't very far off! The intellect thins while the drama thickens...
I think what's going is that these "progressive" cry-bullies are preying on (mostly white) people's desires to be desperately seen as not a bigot, or racist, or sexist, or transphobe, etc. If you say call one of these people (who love virtue signalling) racist, sexist, etc, they apologize and change their behaviour. In this way the "progressive" gains control over the behaviour of other people. These people love the feeling of power and control over other people, because they've never really experienced it before. This is why lately we're seeing this massive proliferation in talk about, and accusations of racism, sexism, etc. These people have got a little taste of power and control over others and they want MORE. I think one of the reasons Trump was elected was a backlash (or 'white lash') against this manipulation. People are absolutely sick of being told what to do, of being exploited through their own sense of morality - through actually being a good person - into bowing to the whims of some screeching college age SJW. It's gotten to the point that words like racist, sexist, homophobe, have been thrown around so much they've lost of the power and meaning they once had. People are getting to the point of when someone calls them racist, their response is now just, "well if that makes me a racist then so be it". These people don't actually genuinely care about sexism of civil rights or the new craze of "respecting pronouns" and advocating for transgender rights. They don't give a shit. They exploit and use those things (which actual good people DO care about) as a tool to gain political control over other people. It satisfies them. I mean nobody (sane) actually thinks it's sexist to sit with your legs apart on a bus or train ("man spreading"), they just say it is and accuse people of being sexist because it gives them great satisfaction to control someone else's behaviour. This is just a very minor example, they also try to control how others dress, how they think and form opinions, how they celebrate holidays, how they talk, what they are and aren't allowed to say, who they vote for. These people actually WANT you to feel guilty about being white, or male, or middle class, or straight, etc, because it benefits them. Some cherry picked examples:
Girl has one of the most punchable faces I've ever seen.
The black girl is nothing more than a bully. She doesn't care about 'cultural appropriation', she just levels that accusation towards people in order to control and dominate - bully them into submission. All she wants to do is make someone do what she wants. She KNOWS she's being a bully, and she KNOWS what she's doing is wrong, and shameful - this is the reason she attacks the cameraman. Because it's proof of her disgusting behaviour.
"What you're doing offends me. Therefore you must stop doing it. If you don't then you're a bad immoral person". < The best solution towards this sort of entitlement is to simply not care. I'm offending you? So what? The only reason these people have any influence is because (mostly white) people DO care about not causing offense. They are good people already, and they're just being cynically exploited because of it.
Getting back to this thread, the crazy thing is that I bet those girls who were getting rated 9/10 or 10/10, or in some way learned that the males thought they were physically attractive ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT. But only if they find the guy attractive. There seems this double standard between what a guy who they find unattractive says about them, and what someone attractive says. An ugly male says she's "hot, nice legs, big tits, 9/10" is an objectifying sexist creep. Whereas a male who they find attractive says the exact same thing is "confident, 'knows what they want', assertive, alpha, hot".
I look at it like this.
Either there is some standard of conduct which is expected of the students or there is not such a standard.
If there is such a standard and the students fail to meet it, then there should be some consequences.
This is about holding students accountable to standards of conduct, not sheltering women from unseemly realities.
. . . I pretty much agree with all of that. Lots of excellent points throughout.
How would the standard of conduct be expressed so that rating women would be against it?
I'm sure the standard doesn't specify that one isn't to rate women.
Whatever it would specify so that rating women could be seen as a violation of it must be so broadly phrased that just about anything could be seen as a violation of it.
I disagree.
It is common sense really.
The young men are likely expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of the school.
There is no way the school would condone such a rating system of women even if they don't explicitly state that you should not, as a representative of the school, rate women according to your opinions about their sexual attractiveness.
These guys are representing the school and common sense should have informed them that the school would not condone such things.
They obviously were not concerned with taking that duty of representing the school and it's values seriously and so they should face the consequences for failing.
I completely disagree that such things must be stated explicitly in the guidelines before these young men can be held accountable.
They used poor judgement, there is no argument about that.
They knew that if their activities were exposed it would reflect poorly upon them as representatives of the school.
The school ought to penalize these young men for that failure or the school risks the appearance that they condone such behavior.
The school cannot condone such behavior so it must penalize these young men in order to demonstrate that these young men's actions do not represent the schools values.
What you didn't answer was this: "How would the standard of conduct be expressed so that rating women would be against it?"
I did answer.
That is a matter of common sense.
There is no need for the school to state explicitly that as a representative of the school you should not rate women according to your opinions about their sexual attractiveness.
I disagreed with you that it should be necessary to do this because I believe it is reasonable for the school to expect of these young men to be capable of employing such judgement without explicit guidance.
They are old enough to understand what is expected of them and to understand that failure to uphold such expectations results in consequences.
Again I don't agree that what they did was excusable because again they did not represent exclusively themselves, which would be arguably excusable sure, but they also represented their school and therefor must take into account what expectations their school will have of them as representatives.
Are you saying it is not reasonable for the school to expect such things of it's representatives unless it is strictly stated?
Also consider how it will look for the institution if they do nothing.
It would then appear that the school does condone such things.
Of course I disagree with the view that the school must state explicitly that you should not rate women according to sexual attractiveness, it should be obvious from the school's own practices that to do such a thing is not representative of the schools values.
Harvard does not rate it's female staff and students according to opinions about the sexual attractiveness of those women, so it should be obvious to these boys that doing so that it is not in keeping with Harvard's values to do so.
So "it's a matter of common sense" would be how it would be expressed in the school's policy?
It is simple.
Again the school obviously does not rate women this way so obviously it is not in keeping with school values.
The school is not being unreasonable in expectations in my opinion.
So, no, I don't agree that guidelines must explicitly state that you should not rate women on scale in accordance with your opinions about their sexual attractiveness as a representative of the school.
Perhaps you believe that such guidelines should be exactly worded.
I think that would be a disservice because in the reality of a work environment such things will not be explicitly stated and these young men will be expected to exercise their better judgement.
If this had happened in a professional setting it could result in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
These young men should be learning what is expected of them as adults in a professional setting, letting them slide for childish behavior would be detrimental to their development in my opinion.
They need to learn how to meet the expectations of the institutions they will represent.
There is nothing unreasonable about that.
I'm just asking you how you believe it should be worded so that it's implied, at least. How would you express that in a code of conduct or whatever?
You don't have to type such long replies every time, by the way. It starts to seem like some sort of OCD thing where you're not able to type short replies.
If the code of conduct states that the student is expected to behave as a representative of the institution and the institution does not rate women according to sexual attractiveness than that to me is sufficient to communicate expectations.
Okay, but I think that would be easily challenged in court, say, since it's very ambiguous.
I disagree.
I think it would be easy to demonstrate how rating women according to sexual attractiveness is not a policy condoned by Harvard guidelines even if it is not explicitly stated.
Not if all it says is "expected to behave as a representative of the institution "
I disagree.
It should be very easy to demonstrate if the institution rates women according to sexual attractiveness or not.
. . . An approach that wouldn't work because it would be very easy to demonstrate that the institution doesn't do all manner of things that its students publicly do, yet the institution has no problem with all of those other things. Hence, "doing only what the institution itself does, and not doing what it doesn't" wouldn't fly as a criterion.
I see your point.
Hypothetically, if these young men sued the school, they might win that lawsuit.
But I still disagree that would be the most likely outcome.