The only thing clear about Fordham philosophy prof William Jaworski is that some people didn’t like what he had to say. Had he done something, as in sexually molest a student, it would be understandable that he was a target of student outrage. But there isn’t a whisper of anything of the sort.
“Right now it’s unsubstantiated allegation,” [Associate Dean of the School of Professional & Continuing Studies Cira] Vernazza said. “The key is to substantiate or not. Right? So that’s the procedure. That’s the investigative procedure. So try to be fair about it. We don’t know because we don’t know. If you have firsthand experience, you should come forward.”
Firsthand experience of what? There isn’t the slightest clue given. But that didn’t stop two seniors from deciding to rise up to save others from . . . something.
Allegations had been swirling around William Jaworski for years.
An associate philosophy professor at Fordham University, Dr. Jaworski was accused of making female students feel “uncomfortable” and “unsafe,” according to a letter he received from the university. Many formal and informal complaints were made against him, two of which were substantiated, one for sexual harassment and another for unprofessional conduct. The letter said the “pattern of behavior” had gone on for over a decade.
Most of us engage in a “pattern of behavior” when it entails being us. Who we are. And if who we are isn’t as woke as thoroughly modern college co-eds want us to be, dedicating ourselves and our pedagogy to making children feel comfortable and safe, then there’s a fairly decent chance being who we are, our “pattern of behavior,” will make them feel unsafe.
If you’re not quite following what it is that Jaworski is accused of doing, even if random females have feelings of discomfort about it, maybe his academic interests will explain.
The professor had intended to teach a course on “sexuality and morality from a traditionalist perspective,” his lawyer said.
Doesn’t the mere word, “traditionalist,” make any decent co-ed shudder, writhe in fear and agony? No wonder they feel unsafe, with a philosophy professor whose approach fails to fully embrace their feelings. The lawyer, by the way, is Andrew Miltenberg, who has become the premier lawyer defending against Title IX and political correctness excesses on campus. He’s a very busy guy these days.
But official channels, such as the myriad Title IX compaints filed against Jaworski, have proven inadequate as far as some female students are concerned, as even their ease of conviction has failed to capture his awfulness and end his reign of traditionalist terror. So two decided to fix his wagon themselves.
So at the beginning of this semester, two seniors, Samantha Norman and Eliza Putnam, decided to do something about it. On the first day of class in January, they visited two of Dr. Jaworski’s Philosophical Ethics classes, taught at the university’s Lincoln Center campus, in Manhattan, before the instructor arrived. Standing in front of a white board with about two dozen students folded into desks in front of them, they delivered a warning.
Who were these two students? Victims of Jaworski’s pattern of unsafeness? There’s no suggestion that they were harmed by Jaworski’s weaponized traditionalism, but they heard rumors and their passion compelled them to take action to end the tyranny of discomfort.
“We introduced ourselves and said, ‘We just want you to know that there’s a history of allegations against this professor and multiple Title IX complaints,’” Ms. Putnam said.
They told the students to take care of themselves and take care of each other, they said. They were in and out in less than five minutes.
How was their moving bravery rewarded? Did they get extra tassels at graduation for being white knights? On the contrary.
Just a few days later, the women received an email asking them to meet with the department of public safety. At first, they thought the university might be trying to learn more about Dr. Jaworski’s behavior. But it soon became apparent that they were the targets. The university began a formal investigation as to whether they had violated its code of conduct for dishonesty, disorderly conduct and verbal harassment.
This month, they were told that the dishonesty charge had stuck. While it will have little practical effect, it is a black mark on their record, one the women feel is aimed at stifling their speech.
But the two at least saved one student from unpleasant feelings.
Ivoryona Williams, a sophomore, was in the class Ms. Putnam visited. She said that after she heard what Ms. Putnam had to say, she dropped the class.
“I can’t be in this class,” she said. “I just know for my well-being, I don’t want to be in any type of compromising situation.”
And what of the two courageous women who risked a black mark on their record by warning a class of students that their professor was a danger to their welfare? They got a lawyer.
“The conspiracy of silence about sexual abuse deprives future victims of the opportunity to protect themselves,” [former NLRB member Kent] Hirozawa said. “What these students did to try to break the cycle was generous and courageous, and what they told their fellow students was true. It is ironic that Fordham should punish them for ‘dishonesty.’ The only dishonesty here is Fordham’s attempt to silence them and hide the truth.”
Wait, what? Jaworski “sexually abused” someone? Whom? What? Where? When? What is this “truth” they’re hiding? Two women went into a professor’s classroom to instill fear and loathing in his students, trying to “break the cycle” of something, but what?
Hirozawa’s calling their act “generous and courageous” is what a lawyer shooting blanks should do, obfuscate with empty words what can’t be explained in any comprehensible way otherwise. But remarkably, not a single word of what Professor Jaworski said or did that is even claimed to be inappropriate appears anywhere.
But spreading rumors of . . . something, instilling fear of . . . something, is close enough if it saves some female student from discomfort. And if that’s not good enough to suspend a prof, not to mention smear him in the New York Times, then what good is Title IX anyway?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Public denunciation and innuendo. What could go wrong?
Someone needs to clue in the sisterhood that if you’re going to go public on someone/something, you better be able to nail it down.
Why? It doesn’t seem to pose a problem here at all. As long as vagaries like “sexual misconduct,” “harassment” and “sexual abuse” are a completely acceptable substitute for actual allegations, no one will ever have a clue what they’re talking about and no woke person will care.
There is adequate precedent:
At least it’s not A Man For All Seasons.
Ouch!
But in defense, Sir Thomas More had actually done something, and was actually charged with something cognizable.
Prof William Jaworski, not so much:
The devil you say.
When I hated people in my 20’s, I hated them with an immature passion. As I get older I see I was the only person with the problem. Too much time on my hands and too little brain in my head.
My Dad always says, “Don’t piss on someone’s grave unless you know they are dead”.
Isn’t it obvious? Some student regretted taking the class a decade later. That’s basically rape, right?
What makes it easy for you all to poke fun, is that neither the university nor these two students revealed anything about the nature of the allegations against him. You would like to believe that he is being attacked because of his traditionalist views, and perhaps he is, or perhaps he is not. Despite our deep curiosity to know more, the investigation at this point is confidential.
That’s utter nonsense. While the investigation may be confidential, nothing stops any of the students from providing any concrete allegation of what they claim he’s done. They haven’t. Not a single actual allegation. Yet, two girls baselessly smear him in his classroom to his students. Absurd.
I imagine the several Title IX complaints each made allegations. The university has a process for determining what to do about them. The students could more rightly have been charged with dishonesty if they walked into those classrooms and said the prof had done this or that (which they are not likely to know whether those allegations are true or not). They apparently said (truthfully) that there are allegations against him. I don’t imagine you’d have been more impressed with them if they’d been more specific.
Forgive me, I assumed you had a baseline grasp of the subject matter, as this is a law blog and most readers have a passing familiarity with law. You’ve conflated to distinct things, the conduct that allegedly occurred and a poor process for adjudicating the conduct. Allegations of misconduct may be made. That doesn’t make them true, and that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with any sort of sexual misconduct. Indeed, it doesn’t mean that the conduct complained of is violative of Title IX. Most people are exceptionally clueless as to what Title IX prohibits, and there is a great deal of misinformation about what’s covered by Title IX being spread by “victim” advocates who would like it to cover their every hurt feelings. It doesn’t.
In a state of abject ignorance as to the conduct allegedly committed, it cannot be assumed that it’s related to any vague sexual impropriety. But the allegation is independent of the Title IX adjudicatory process. There is an allegation that Jaworski did “something,” but what remains unknown. While the Title IX adjudicatory process may be confidential, the allegation itself can be told to the world. If it isn’t, then no one has any basis for assuming what it is and spreading rumors that it relates to either sexual impropriety or presents any threat to anyone whatsoever. Ignorance of an allegation does not create a free space to assume whatever strikes your fancy. That’s inane.
As for the two girls, they had no knowledge of specific conduct, either claimed to be perpetrated on them or anyone else. Not just the theoretical existence of an unknown allegation or rumors that the prof engaged in some vague, general misconduct, but anything. You assume they have some generic right to spread warning rumors about him, arguing that it’s less harmful to be vague than specific, as if ignorance permits what specifics would not. You beg the question. If they know nothing, they have no cause to spread rumors. That they have “feelings” that he’s somehow a dangerous person because others spread vague rumors doesn’t justify their being more direct rumor-mongers.
They did not “apparently” say “(truthfully) that there are allegations against him.” They warned student he was a danger to their safety. I don’t imagine you’re capable of grasping any of these distinctions given the shallowness and ignorance of your apologia for this disgraceful conduct.
Prof. Groarke teaches government at Manhattan College. Granted, she’s not a lawprof, but govt is still sufficiently close to law to suggest that her comments here are either deliberately disingenuous or she’s completely incompetent.
I’m going with disingenuous, as even a moderately intelligent incompetent would realize how illogical her “imaginations” are.
Even so, she should have done a far better job of it. This was shockingly ignorant.
I hope you all enjoyed criticizing me for things I wrote, and things I didn’t write. Of course the Title IX complaints, whatever they concern, may be true or false. I’m not making any assumptions about what kind of behavior they cover, or how well-founded they may or may not be. Several of you wise lawyers are assuming that they are unfounded allegations based on a student’s hurt feelings about hearing conservative ideas expressed, even as you criticize undergraduates for assumptions you believe they have made.
I hope that Professor Jaworski enjoys his paid leave, and is either cleared or punished, as appropriate to what he did or didn’t do.
Suggestion: before doubling down, consider the efficacy of pretending you didn’t say what you said when it’s right there to be read. It’s an ill-advised approach and makes you look even worse. To the extent there was any doubt before, you’ve now confirmed it.
We’re not academics inclined to cut you a break and give you a graceful exit. We’re lawyers. If you choose to spew nonsense, you own it. One more suggestion: stop digging. You’re really bad at this.
No, no, no, dear professor. You don’t get to avoid responsibility for your shenanigans.
“They apparently said (truthfully) that there are allegations against him.”
As has been already pointed out to you, this is false. Did you lie? Did you willfully ignore what the two girls said they did, warning the class that they were sexually threatened by Jaworski? Did you try to sneak that lie in as if nobody would notice that you deliberately misstated and whitewashed what occured, and now trying desperately that these words, this exact quote, isn’t yours?
Us wise lawyers are pretty good at reading the words of scoundrels. You’re not special.
Harsh but fair.
I am sure Mr Jaworski will be relieved that clear-headed professors like yourself will be the ones determining the definition of a preponderance of evidence as required in the Universities Code Of Conduct hearing.
You owe me brain cells. I feel stupider just having read your comment.
The irony is that the less someone grasps, the easier it is for them to write irrational gibberish, and the more effort it takes to untangle the nonsense. This was particularly awful.
The other thing that is so disturbing about this case, Margaret, is that given the way Title IX works if the university had anyone claiming firsthand misconduct they wouldn’t need to ‘substantiate allegations’ they way they are proceeding. You follow? They are initiating their hunt because of allegations about allegations. That is why Vernazza said. “If you have firsthand experience, you should come forward.” They don’t even have anyone making a firsthand allegation. It is all secondhand. Vernazza is not even dancing around the issue. It’s all rumor and they figure if they cast a wide net they will get someone to come forward. Because the rumors must be true. As SHG pointed out, people file bogus Title IX complaints all the time. Sometimes done malisiously, but often out of ignorance becasue they think if someting hurts their feelings (triggers them) they have a legitimate complaint.
What’s clear is that these to students are responding to an allegation. They don’t have an allegation themselves. They don’t even know anyone who has an allegation. It’s not like they are standing up for someone they believe. They just caught wind of the rumors and felt entitled to do something. Surely you see the problem with this. If the environment is such that just on the existence of allegations they treat someone this way we have a poisoned evironment.