Earlier today, freshly minted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill published a piece that broke new ground in the Brett Kavanaugh debate. She revealed that, in her experience, black men were more sympathetic to Kavanaugh than she anticipated:
On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.
Hill says this support makes a “twisted kind of sense,” because, “Countless times, black men have had to witness the careers and reputations of other black men ruthlessly destroyed because of unproved rape and sexual-assault accusations.” But there’s nothing “twisted” about it. Their experience highlights the vital importance of due process and the presumption of innocence.
In fact, according to a report she cites, while black men account for 22 percent of sexual-assault convictions, they account for a whopping 59 percent of exonerations. And that’s just criminal convictions and exonerations. Hill doesn’t even delve into the ongoing scandal of campus Title IX adjudications, where the stakes, like those of a judicial confirmation hearing, aren’t criminal but nevertheless remain high: An accused student’s enrollment in school is often on the line.
Last September Emily Yoffe wrote a troubling essay (also in The Atlantic) detailing how preliminary evidence indicates that campus courts are disproportionately punishing black men. These tribunals, animated by the very “believe survivors” ideology of Kavanaugh’s opponents, are imposing terrible consequences on young African-Americans, often stemming from morning-after regret amplified by racial differences. Yoffe quotes Harvard Law professor Janet Halley:
“American racial history is laced with vendetta-like scandals in which black men are accused of sexually assaulting white women,” followed eventually by the revelation “that the accused men were not wrongdoers at all.” She writes that “morning-after remorse can make sex that seemed like a good idea at the time look really alarming in retrospect; and the general social disadvantage that black men continue to carry in our culture can make it easier for everyone in the adjudicative process to put the blame on them.” She has observed the phenomenon at her own university: “Case after Harvard case that has come to my attention, including several in which I have played some advocacy or adjudication role, has involved black male respondents.”
Jeannie Suk Gersen, also a Harvard Law professor, has written extensively on Title IX and notes that campus administrators and faculty members who work on campus adjudications have told her that “most of the complaints they see are against minorities.” The federal government — which, under President Obama, mandated reduced due-process protections for accused students — has been remarkably incurious about the racial effect of its policies. But individual schools have been subject to race-discrimination complaints, and the numbers are stunning.
Accusations are made and formal charges brought against people all the time. Evidence is produced and judgments are made. The resulting decision is based on the evidence. I am quite confused as to why this basic concept is so difficult to understand.
I am not confused as to why garbage like Feinstein would choose to ignore this principle to serve a political purpose. That’s what low-life’s do. What is incomprehensible is how many people throw this principle of “at least provide some PROOF before you condemn a person” out the window.
Yeah, the accusations of a woman that has been assaulted are serious and should be taken seriously. However, PROOF is still required to determine what, if anything, happened. And, in certain circumstances (like, when a Democrat is accused, for instance), proof IS required. DEMANDED. And, LOTS of it is demanded before liberals see the potential for political damage outweighing the political gain (for this, to them, is EVERYTHING) and reluctant action is taken.
Race adds an extra bonus into the mix, introducing a target that is easily accused. I guess this is some of the left’s affirmative action; making sure minorities get their fair share of accusation and blame… and MORE.
Liberal-think screws up everything it touches.
Steve Crowder made a brilliant parody that reinterprets the movie To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) with a 2018 leftist respect for presumption of innocence: To Kill a #MeTooBird (Parody) (2 wonderful minutes)