Hey, there! Log in / Register

Babson exonerates those two students

The Globe reports: Yes, they took a victory lap around Wellesley College, no, they didn't spit at anybody or yell slurs.

Ad:

Comments

A decent follow up. Good honest reporting. Thank you.

up
Voting closed 0

Seems like another case of a manufactured incident by the victim mafia. Some Wellesley student will now probably write an op-ed about how "problematic" this ruling by Babson is, and how it makes them feel "unsafe" and "marginalized."

up
Voting closed 0

What where they doing at Wellesley in the first place? It's a private college and a private campus at which they had no business.

They drove around Wellesley with the sole purpose of annoying the students at that college. Not criminal behavior, but not acceptable nevertheless. They deserve the public shaming they received.

up
Voting closed 0

There are different levels of annoyance. Going to the nearby alma mater of the losing candidate brandishing a flag with the name of the winning candidate, while boorish, is nothing compared to what they were accused of.

Now if they had shouted racist, sexist, homophobic, or like things, spit at students, and/or intentionally stopped at the African American dorm (or whatever) then yes, they would have definitely deserved a public shaming. But they never did most of what they were accused of. As it is, they are a step above Richard Jewell in terms of the attention they got versus what they should have gotten.

Would I have done what they did? No, because I have some personal dignity, but let's not double down on the scorn.

up
Voting closed 0

Here's an analogy: A punk kid decides to tag a wall. While spraying his gang sign he happens to get mugged by another criminal.

Do I feel sorry for the punk tagger? No.
Do I excuse the mugger? No.

These kids choose Wellesley of all places specifically to troll. Their actions are not worthy of jail and anyone who makes false accusations should be dealt with separately. But the fact remains these punks deserve to be dragged through the figurative mud for their actions. They brought it upon themselves for heading to Wellesley specifically to taunt women that night.

up
Voting closed 0

Because Hillary Clinton went to school there. Lets not make this sound like some sort of crime against women. There are enough real ones.

After all, per your own words, they were nothing more than an 'annoyance'.

up
Voting closed 0

The campaign was a proxy for how women should be treated. Trump himself said it was OK to abuse woman when you're powerful. His comments were not typical political banter, they were extremely distressing to many women, particularly a majority of students at the all female school.

Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it acceptable.

up
Voting closed 0

You think 18-22 year olds that are 'guilty' of an annoyance should be publicly shamed, meaning, in the reality we live in, it effectively goes on their permanent record of the internet- for any and all to see- possibly for their entire existence.

Their names, indelibly linked to the 'crime' of being annoying? Whatever it may cost them in the future? Because, hey, that is the lesson they should learn and the country we want to be in?

You're worried about 'trump's america' for how women should be treated? Maybe you should add worrying about 'trump's america' for the draconian idea that being "annoying" in college should haunt you for life.

Because it is possible the same victims at Wellesley have been or will be 'annoying' at some point too.

Edit: Also, as a much more general observation, acting like ~*president elect*~ donald trump is the massive cause of injustices and tyranny towards women, disadvantaged, or minority people is ignoring, well, the entirety of history I suppose. I think his behavior should be acknowledged and discouraged and find it disconcerting that not much less than half of voters agree with me. But let us not diminish the reality of the situation.

College men have long been doing despicable things to college women. Maybe being annoying is on that list. Maybe that list is long and distinguished already, with, as I believe I hinted at in a different comment, much more serious shit to deal with.

up
Voting closed 0

You think 18-22 year olds that are 'guilty' of an annoyance should be publicly shamed, meaning, in the reality we live in, it effectively goes on their permanent record of the internet- for any and all to see- possibly for their entire existence.

Yes, that's exactly what I think in the case of this annoyance.

up
Voting closed 0

You doubled down on your shit in record time. When President Trump makes being 'annoying' a crime against the state, I hope we can revisit this conversation.

For what it is worth, I find your opinion annoying.

up
Voting closed 0

Because Hillary Clinton went to school there.

Because you were with them?

Or are you just saying it because you are simply a consistent enabler for bullies and thugs who fully intend to threaten and intimidate women? "Oh, he didn't mean to knock her unconscious, he was just mad because his boss was mean/trying to make a point about the meatloaf/etc.".

Lots of us grew up with that "thinking" - and grew out of it.

up
Voting closed 0

Because you know exactly as much about the situation as I do and have no issues remarking on it.

up
Voting closed 0

That escalated quickly.

up
Voting closed 0

I've been reading scumquistador's posts for quite a while. My most gracious description of him would be a "piece of work."

I've seen him trying to take the piss out of any and all posters and no "enabler for bullies."

Care to specify where he's done this and yet not done it for others on the other side of issues?

up
Voting closed 0

Would you feel the same way if BLM or the anti-trump protesters showed up on private property (or anywhere else they were otherwise unwelcome), that the individual protesters deserve public shaming? If they show up in a mall I am shopping at (which is private property), and their political views offend me, do you think it would be right for me to want to publicly shame them and want to try to get them kicked out of their university?

up
Voting closed 0

BLM has done that...marching through college libraries shouting at students trying to study. Were they disciplined and publicly shamed?

And before you ask,

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27646/

up
Voting closed 0

yeah

every person that is 'annoying' on a college campus should be publicly shamed

yeah

hahahahahahaahhaahahhaahahahahahah

what team of people are you going to employ 24/7/365 to handle all of the shaming required for such an endeavor? you must have deep pockets!

up
Voting closed 0

girls felt the need to embellish the incident. This is just one of the reasons why I am usually reticent to accept any incident akin to this one without more analysis and/or evidence.

What happened was very poor behavior but not criminal, indeed, on the part of the Babson students (and, which they apologized for, BTW). But making false accusations, and/or accusing someone of a criminal action, assault by spitting, is wrong. Hopefully, someone at Wellesley will counsel these girls in the error of their ways.

up
Voting closed 0

You need to grow up.

You have "proof" that they embellished? Or was there simply no video?

up
Voting closed 0

As to your first point, to be fair, the guys were referred to as "boys" farther down the thread, and as of now (as I write this) no one has taken exception to that.

College-age people are a gray zone - to those of us more than double their age, they often seem way more like girls and boys than women and men. Especially the males, at least the ones I've known, but I try to be consistent in my terminology between the sexes, if not from day to day.

up
Voting closed 0

So, who started the rumor about the spitting and racial slurs?

up
Voting closed 0

Perhaps it was the people who were spit on and had racial slurs screamed at them? Babson probably wanted DNA evidence, a video, etc. Wellesley trusts its students.

They certainly had no business driving around the Wellesley campus in the first place.

See SockPuppet's comment, below.

up
Voting closed 0

concerning an incident that happened at another college? How does that work? I don't see where it says they did not yell slurs, etc... only that Babson's internal investigation concludes there's no evidence (despite what witnesses said). I trust Wellesley more on this. To me, this reads as the usual demographic getting a pass for whatever they do.

up
Voting closed 0

Adam's assertions go farther than the story or the investigation.

The Babson internal investigation "could not find any evidence the men had done anything other than drive through the campus with a Trump flag yelling 'Make America Great Again.'” That's not the same thing as the investigation finding evidence that the two had not spit at anybody or yelled slurs.

As the great sage Rummy has said, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

The only evidence of the slurs and spitting was in the statements of Wellesley students: "Students from the private women’s college, Hillary Clinton’s alma mater, had said the two men spat on a Wellesley student and yelled racial and homophobic slurs while parked in front of the Harambee House, an on-campus gathering place traditionally meant for African American students."

Babson has an obligation to its students, including the obligation not to punish students with expulsion without due process and positive proof of misdeeds. The statements of Wellesley students do not, apparently, rise to Babson's standard of evidence.

Wellesley has an obligation to its own students, and will likely continue to find the statements of its own students trustworthy. Wellesley has no obligation to doubt its own students, nor ever to let the rude boys back on its campus. Similarly, the boys' former fraternity has no obligation to reverse their expulsion.

up
Voting closed 0

Wellesley College Police also investigated and found the worst of the claims to be unsupported. I think those folk kind of have the safety of the women of Wellesley in mind when they delve into such matters.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd be interested to read about that if you have a link to it. They had officers on the scene, so they should have something to say about it.

up
Voting closed 0

The Globe's here. Or you could have clicked on the links at the end of the story.

up
Voting closed 0

That does indeed, once Cullen's opinions are boiled away, seem to be very little evidence.

That the one person who initiated the spitting allegation refused to speak with the Babson administrator investigating the matter does not suggest that she is confident in her recollection.

That no eyewitness spoke to the police to testify to the use of slurs suggests that it would not be appropriate for anyone to continue accusing the boys of using slurs.

Still, the conclusion as reported in a news column is "there is no evidence that the boys yelled slurs." The statement "the boys did not yell slurs" belongs where it is found, in the opinion pages.

up
Voting closed 0

Not impossible that it happened, but kids at a school like Babson are more likely to drive around with a Trump flag than to commit an act that any intelligent human being would know might get them in serious trouble.

My opinion anyway.

Also, schools don't need a burden of proof like the police would. If the source is credible but wants to stay anonymous, they can use that source for discipline unlike the criminal justice system which could not. If the Wellesley College police said that a student said they were spit on but did not want to make any complaint, the school could still go forward, which again is unlike most criminal charges.

And in terms of the private property angle, these schools will give some leeway in terms of students from other schools coming onto their property and exercising 1st Amendment rights, although this one would have probably crossed the line, but still not criminally in terms of the schools looking for action.

up
Voting closed 0

My opinion is also that it's more likely than not that the boys did not do those two things (spitting, slurs), and not because I believe they have good judgment, which they obviously lack. It's undeniable that they behaved like assholes; the only matter in question is the precise degree of assholish behavior they displayed.

My opinion is that it is more likely than not that the Wellesley students exaggerated the degree of assholish behavior the two boys displayed, and also that it is also more likely than not that the boys minimized the degree of assholish behavior they displayed.

However, I don't believe anyone has established these opinions as facts, so it remains incorrect to state them as such.

up
Voting closed 0

No one at Wellesley ever reported that slurs and spitting happened, only that some heard others say that. That to me is much more than "more likely than not", it's more to the "beyond any reasonable doubt" category.

As for it being a fact? I guess I would leave it to the Epistemologists for that one. (Yes I had to look that one up)

up
Voting closed 0

Interesting that there is no mention that one of the students family has their name on one of the babson campus buildings,

up
Voting closed 0

Exonerated, and still assholes. Loud, boorish, tasteless, no-class assholes who demonstrated that all Daddy's money spent on their education was utterly wasted. People know who they are, and I hope this does dog them. If, as some believe, this is no big deal, then it's no big deal -- right? They should be able to stand up and say, "Yes, I did it," and deal with the consequences, whether they're applauded or shunned.

up
Voting closed 0