In my last post, I promised I would share your thoughts on Catherine Criswell’s interview right here on the blog. After all, CiC is just as much about your perspective as it is about mine. (Although that post was far more centered on Ms. Criswell’s perspective than my own.) You sent me your reactions anonymously on the blog ask.fm page and also in the blog comments. Thanks a bunch to everyone who contributed!
Here’s what you guys thought:
- Good questions…unfortunately her answers did not have any substance. Can’t say I learned anything about her from this interview, except that her view of a perfect Stanford is one where the community will no longer question her egregious abuses of power and instead blindly accept it under the basis that she’s doing it in “goodwill”. Wish you had pressed her more on the ridiculously broad interpretation of Title IX she’s using to claim jurisdiction over all Stanford affairs. On a side note, love how she tries to group Title IX office and Stanford administration together, when really the administration is being held hostage to her (under the threat of loss of federal funding) just as much as the students. From my talks with administrators, they say she currently holds way too much power and is able to act essentially autonomously, as to overturn one of her “recommendations” is to overturn the Federal Government. She wields the power of the government, without the laws that keep government power in check. -Christina Jones
- She wants to inspire trust and transparency? Maybe she should have started by letting you record the interview. This interview and the disregard she demonstrated for due process made me trust her far less. She’s an unchecked tyrant that either needs to be reigned in (maybe take a class on justice and reasonable doubt) or ousted from her office. A woman like this has no place in government. -John
- If she wants Stanford to be a place where people “look out for each other and treat each other fairly,” then maybe she should start introducing an element of fairness in her unilateral, draconian, and wholly ambiguous processes that sh*t all over any semblance of impartiality or justice. -Anonymous
- If I didn’t have a substantiated reason to hate Criswell before, I certainly do now. I agree with everything in Christina Jones’ comment. And what the f*ck does “keeping in mind what more likely than not took place” mean?? What happened to the burden of proof and “beyond a reasonable doubt?” She clearly has no regard for constitutional values and the due process of law. It’s frankly terrifying that the federal government would employ a woman with such lax legal standards. And how can you condemn “criticisms of specific individuals involved in an investigation,” especially if the individuals are kept secret? How can you support free speech and punish “criticism??” Simple criticism in any form towards anybody shouldn’t be punished under any circumstances. Also 50.1% against the suspect is unequivocally not “innocent until guilty” but empirically “guilty until proven innocent.” Anyway thanks for the article. Given that she’s hiring 2 full-time “investigators” (read Gestapo), I’m sure there’s plenty more controversy to come. Just be sure to keep us updated. -Anonymous
You know I will, DR. You know I will.
Con amor ~ Catherine
P.S. Y’all are so smart it’s so damn sexy oh mah gAWD