Black Men Speaking Latin – WSJ

Source: Black Men Speaking Latin – WSJ

I wonder if another factor is forming an artificial gang where the peer group focuses on achievement. If you speak Latin, you can use it as a code to communicate with anyone else who speaks Latin. Having a common language, you hang out more with fellow Latin speakers, and these will have very specific interests that don’t involve drugs and crime.

Turns out, too, that the young men of Boys’ Latin have become pretty good at distinguishing their ad hominem from their ad honorem. This month the school received the results on the introductory level National Latin Exam, a test taken last year by students around the world. Among the highlights: Two Boys’ Latin students had perfect scores; 60% of its seventh-graders were recognized for achievement, 20% for outstanding achievement; and the number of Boys’ Latin students who tested above the national average doubled from the year before.

 “I invite anyone who doubts what this does for our students to come to a graduation and watch 100 black boys sharply dressed in caps and gowns and proudly reciting their school pledge in Latin,” says the school’s chief executive officer, David Hardy. “Not only is this an unexpected sight, it defies the low expectations society puts on young black men.”

The traditional arguments for studying Latin are well known. More than half of English words have Latin roots, so students who learn Latin improve their vocabularies and linguistic skills. In addition, the discipline of studying Latin—the logic, the structure, the rigor—helps train young minds to think more clearly and systematically.


Why Latin? Partly it’s that the language immediately raises expectations all around. You can’t fake Latin, either. When these boys learn it, they taste the satisfaction that comes from achievement.

Partly it’s the school’s thing. Even if students hate Latin, says Mr. Hardy—maybe especially if they hate it—it’s something everyone at Boys’ Latin goes through, what boot camp at Parris Island is for Marines. It builds identity and esprit de corps.

Joe Biden Says All Drunk Sex Is Rape: ‘It’s Rape. It’s Rape. It’s Rape.’ It’s Not, Though. – Hit & Run :

Source: Joe Biden Says All Drunk Sex Is Rape: ‘It’s Rape. It’s Rape. It’s Rape.’ It’s Not, Though. – Hit & Run :

But Biden implicitly suggested that all drunk sex is rape. What’s fascinating about this opinion is that practically no one believes it to be true. It doesn’t work, quite obviously, in practice. Drunk couples have sex all the time, and no one believes that these encounters automatically constitute rape. I doubt seriously that most people, or even many people, think cultural norms should be revised so that sex is always off the table the second that alcohol enters the mix. I doubt that even Biden himself thinks this.

And yet the former vice president is proud of the work the Education Department has done to confuse college students about sex and consent. In the interview with Teen Vogue, he expressed concern that the new secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, might reverse the Office for Civil Rights’ Obama-era Title IX guidance, which encouraged university administrators to presume that accused males were guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Let me tell you, it bothers me most if Secretary DeVos is going to really dumb down Title IX enforcement,” said Biden. “The real message, the real frightening message you’re going to send out is, our culture says it’s OK.”

But what does it say about our culture if the vice president of the United States—the foremost political advocate of policy changes relating to sexual assault on campus—doesn’t even know what the definition of rape is?

Why not just outlaw all sex and have done with it?

Patterico’s Pontifications » Don’t Look Now But. . .

Source: Patterico’s Pontifications » Don’t Look Now But. . .

Our old friend Andrew Sullivan seems to be trying on his conservative hat once again. In a column at New York magazine titled“Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton” (a sensible essay, if fairly predictable), he includes an interesting criticism of people who have apparently been trying to spin the whole United Airlines kerfuffle as a battle in the social justice wars:

Do you know the real reason Dr. Dao was so brutally tackled and thrown off that United flight? It was all about white supremacy. I mean, what isn’t these days? That idea is from the New Republic. Yes, the cops “seemed” to be African-American, as the author concedes, so the white-versus-minority paradigm is a little off. Yes, this has happened before to many people with no discernible racial or gender pattern. Yes, there is an obvious alternative explanation: The seats from which passengers were forcibly removed were randomly assigned. New York published a similar piece, which argued that the incident was just another example of Trump’s border-and-immigration-enforcement policies toward suspected illegal immigrants of color. That no federal cops were involved and there is no actual evidence at all of police harassment of Asian-Americans is irrelevant — it’s all racism, all the time, everywhere in everything.

It’s easy to mock this reductionism, I know, but it reflects something a little deeper. Asian-Americans, like Jews, are indeed a problem for the “social-justice” brigade. I mean, how on earth have both ethnic groups done so well in such a profoundly racist society? How have bigoted white people allowed these minorities to do so well — even to the point of earning more, on average, than whites? Asian-Americans, for example, have been subject to some of the most brutal oppression, racial hatred, and open discrimination over the years. In the late 19th century, as most worked in hard labor, they were subject to lynchings and violence across the American West and laws that prohibited their employment. They were banned from immigrating to the U.S. in 1924. Japanese-American citizens were forced into internment camps during the Second World War, and subjected to hideous, racist propaganda after Pearl Harbor. Yet, today, Asian-Americans are among the most prosperous, well-educated, and successful ethnic groups in America. What gives? It couldn’t possibly be that they maintained solid two-parent family structures, had social networks that looked after one another, placed enormous emphasis on education and hard work, and thereby turned false, negative stereotypes into true, positive ones, could it? It couldn’t be that all whites are not racists or that the American dream still lives?

No doubt that Sullivan will find plenty of reasons in the future to gratuitously attack conservatives, but for the time being let’s welcome him back to the sensible side, especially inasmuch as he he dares to write about the importance of the two-parent family structure, which no doubt sends the crybully left into paroxysms of rage.

Everything You Think You Know About Campus Sexual Assault Is Wrong: A Review Of ‘The Campus Rape Frenzy’ | Above the Law

Source: Everything You Think You Know About Campus Sexual Assault Is Wrong: A Review Of ‘The Campus Rape Frenzy’ | Above the Law

The most terrifying book you will read this year isn’t written by Stephen King. It’s written by a lawyer and a history professor, and it will blow your hair back.

The book is The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

By way of background, my firm does a lot of work in this area. At this point, we’ve represented students accused of campus misconduct at more than 60 colleges across the country. Matt Kaiser and I write and speak frequently about these issues, and my firm has sued several schools for mishandling these cases. We were the first firm in the country to win summary judgment against a school for violating an accused student’s due process rights. We’ve even written an e-book for people who can’t afford a lawyer about how to defend yourself in one of these cases.

So it was with a not insignificant amount of excitement that I came to this book. (And in the interest of full disclosure, I’m quoted in the book; Stuart is a friend, and I have met KC once.) Finally, the two people who blew a hole in the false media narrative regarding the Duke lacrosse case were going to direct their attention to what has been happening on college campuses since the 2011 release of the Dear Colleague Letter by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. And I am fairly confident they never thought they would have to till this ground again.

After all, you would think that publishing a widely heralded 2007 book on the Duke case would have convinced people that sometimes colleges don’t handle sexual assault cases particularly well. You might even think that colleges would have learned from Duke’s terrible mistakes, which are rumored to have cost tens of millions of dollars in settlements. Alas, you would be wrong. But I love your optimism.

 There are too many things to praise about this book in this column, so I think I’ll just focus on my favorite part — what it does to the faulty, yet oft-repeated, statistics in this area.

Now, you might think that seems like an awfully big number given how many college students there are in the country. If that statistic were true, it would constitute an absolute epidemic of rape. The authors put that number in sharp relief:

The most recent data from the Department of Education indicate that approximately 10 million women are enrolled (full- or part-time) as undergraduates. The one-in-five figure would indicate that 2 million of them will be sexually assaulted at college. That’s 400,000 to 500,000 sexual assaults per year, depending on how many schools are classified as four-year and how many are classified as five-year. For comparison’s sake, under the expanded definition of rape used in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2014 there were 116,645 rapes in the entire United States, a nation of 160 million females, one-sixteenth of whom are in college.

When you actually sit down and do the math, common sense would tell you that “one in five” is false. But as Mark Twain famously said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

But Johnson and Taylor don’t just rely on common sense—they actually do the research and find out how false this is. As they write:

The National Crime Victimization survey (NCVS), conducted every six months by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), has long been regarded as the gold standard of crime surveys. In 2014, BJS estimated that 0.61 percent of female college (and trade school) students, of whom 0.2 percent are raped, are sexually assaulted per year. Nonrape sexual assaults include unwanted sexual touching, attempted rape, and threats.

There is another false statistic that gets bandied about repeatedly. And this one, in many ways, is even worse — because its harm is more direct.

It’s sometimes even put in the training materials given to the panelists who decide these cases at two public schools — essentially, in their jury instructions. The statistic is this: that the false-report rate for sexual assault is between 2 and 8 percent, likely closer to 2 percent due to miscategorization by law enforcement.

As you may know, the burden of proof in these cases is preponderance of the evidence. So these panelists are, in effect, being told that there is between a 92 and 98 percent chance that the accuser in a case is telling the truth, and they only need to decide that issue by 50.1 percent. I have never understood how any lawyer could, in good conscience, support such an idea, but I’ve seen it more than once, and I have seen school lawyers defend using this statistic.

Johnson and Taylor debunk this statistic too. The most risible thing about it is its initial source — a book published more than 40 years ago:

The best known source of the claim that only 2 percent of rape accusations are false is Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. For this fact, Brownmiller cited not a study but rather a speech, by a New York judge, who mentioned unpublished alleged finding by the “NYC Rape Analysis Squad.”

As Dave Barry likes to say, I am not making this up.

Another source for that statistic was research conducted by a man named David Lisak, whose research in this area was debunked by articles in Reason in 2015. As the authors point out, even Lisak himself can’t keep his numbers straight:

Ironically, in a paper published in 2009, Lisak had claimed that “estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8 percent.” Later, in the 2015 documentary film The Hunting Ground, his estimate jumped to “more likely 95 to 98 percent of [campus] rape reports are not false.” So, over a six‑year period and based on the same data, Lisak cited an upper range of false rape claims as 5 percent (2015), 8 percent (2009), and 10 percent (2010). These discrepancies came without explanation from someone purporting to be a careful scholar.

Johnson and Taylor also do an incredibly persuasive deep dive on how Lisak defines a “false” complaint. The restrictiveness of his definition is astonishing. As they note, Lisak is someone who said in November 2007, well after the Duke lacrosse case had been exposed as a giant fraud, that “he would not classify as ‘false’ the previous year’s Duke lacrosse case. ‘I don’t know what happened at Duke,’ he said. ‘No one knows.’”


The book is much more than statistics, of course. Johnson and Taylor do a terrific job highlighting the terrible abuses of due process on college campuses across the country, the find-guilt-at-all-costs mentality of many Title IX coordinators, and the sheer hypocrisy of liberals who once claimed to care about due process.

If you’re interested in these issues on either side, I urge you to read this book. After TheCampus Rape Frenzy, it will be hard to have a serious conversation about campus sexual assault if you haven’t read this book. It’s a quick read and a tremendously compelling one. Johnson and Taylor have done a tremendous service for both the lawyers who practice in this area and the people affected by the terrible abuses going on at college campuses across the country.

The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities [Amazon (affiliate link)]




By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

One answer in five words: “Leftists need to feel superior”.

Or, as T.S. Eliot famously put it: “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” (From the 1950 play “The cocktail party”)

But now for the details:

Alan Dershowitz: Democrats, not Sean Spicer, are the ones exploiting the Holocaust for political gain

Source: Alan Dershowitz: Democrats, not Sean Spicer, are the ones exploiting the Holocaust for political gain

Democrats have merely discovered what they consider a useful club for beating up on a Republican. They didn’t object when Chris Matthews made the same point, because they weren’t interested in beating him up.

By not complaining about Chris Matthews, Democrats have waived the right to complain about Sean Spicer.