tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post114841563144780490..comments2024-03-02T03:29:09.759-05:00Comments on SerandEz and Friends: Response to Canonist's "Importance of Weighing Evidence"Ezziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1148421781451085812006-05-23T18:03:00.000-04:002006-05-23T18:03:00.000-04:001) There's two seperate aspects: One aspect regard...1) There's two seperate aspects: One aspect regarding the actions needed to be taken, and one regarding the allegations. For the former, we pretend that the allegations are true; for the latter, the proper approach *is* "I don't know."<BR/><BR/>2) As someone noted on your blog, you yourself agreed it was a shoddy article. I don't know if the NYM is biased towards rabbis, and it doesn't matter; in *this* article, it came across that way. As a commented by Gil noted, Kolker was writing what he called an "advocacy journalism" piece - that means it is purposely meant to draw sympathy for the alleged victim while essentially ignoring the other side. That's fine, but we should recognize that the article is meant to advocate, not report.<BR/><BR/>3) Granted. However, the lawyer will pick up a number of clients well before this finishes simply by taking on this (high-profile in the community) case. The risk of perjury (as a commenter by you noted) is slim-to-none, even if he was lying outright. It's not a slam-dunk by any means.<BR/><BR/>4) He did so in the comments by you.<BR/><BR/>5) The case is about 'he said he said'. And yes, that's why such cases are difficult to prove; however, until they are cross-examined and the like, there is not much to go on.<BR/><BR/>6) It makes sense for a Jewish newspaper, especially one connected to the Orthodox world, to be more careful about making responsible allegations about Jews, particularly when <I>lashon hara</I> may cost them chunks of readership.<BR/><BR/>7) I completely disagree. Read other posts, and read what Gil wrote about what should be done if they are guilty. Not siding completely with them against the rabbis is not the same as siding with the rabbis. I take no sides, that is correct. I am not required to believe the victims to show them sympathy.<BR/><BR/>8) I would go with the same standards as required (say) for a conviction. I'm not sure what you're asking, really: Would I hire someone who was accused and was fired, and there is reason to believe he is guilty? No, that's absurd.<BR/><BR/>9) Not at all. Again, you're not separating the two parts of this discussion: Responses and guilt.<BR/><BR/>10) A suspension, yes. Presumption of guilt, no. Again, you're combining the two.<BR/><BR/>11) Okay.<BR/><BR/>12) How? It's waiting for further information. This is a case that is going to court - it's not getting ignored in any way. Shouting "guilty guilty!" is presuming guilt.<BR/><BR/>13) You imply that Framowitz's allegations are already "sufficiently credible", which implies acceptance, [presumably] based solely on the fact that he brought the case to court. I'm not sure how else to read that passage.<BR/><BR/>14) Your statement there emphasized: <I>Without this kind of individual vigilance, inspection and open debate among community members, none of the changes Student proposes mean anything</I>. It was to this I (and I believe Gil, but you can ask him) would agree.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1148419662265076142006-05-23T17:27:00.000-04:002006-05-23T17:27:00.000-04:00Ezzie - You're being a bit dense about what I'm wr...Ezzie - You're being a bit dense about what I'm writing, and allowing for a rather broad and forgiving interpretation of what Student has written.<BR/>1) I never claim there's no middle ground, but that middle ground must be more than "I don't know." Saying "the allegations are credible enough to warrant suspension, with permanent removal or reinstatement coming with a verdict" is at least doing something. Saying "I don't know" is refusing to engage with the evidence.<BR/>2) The idea that New York Magazine has a bias toward representing Orthodox rabbis as abusers is unfounded and even if we were to take as a given that it does, that bias would have to outweigh its desire to avoid libel suits and an immense diminution of its credibility. Let me offer a rebuke to you that it's similarly insufficient to say "I am not particularly familiar with the New York Magazine." <I>Get particularly familiar!</I><BR/>3) Yes, the willingness to risk perjury charges does not automatically mean that plaintiffs are telling the truth. But there's a lot to this story. There are <I>three</I> individual plaintiffs who've put their freedoms and assets on the line (because they leave themselves wide open for prosecution and a countersuit if the charges prove illegitimate, as well as a pretty automatic order to pay for the other side's legal bills) to make specific claims about what happened to them, one of whom is named. There's a lawyer who has developed a quality reputation for investigating and then pursuing just such cases who's put himself on the line. There's an investigative journalist backed by a major American publication who investigated the claims by speaking to a wide variety of sources and ensuring that the factual record supported them. And throughout all of this, Kolko alongside the others named (Margulies, etc.) has had ample opportunity to respond and chosen not to.<BR/>4) You go farther than Student did in saying "there is reason to believe them." Good. Now you need to articulate what would change your mind in order to believe them. What if the lawsuits are dismissed on a technicality? What if Kolko flees the country? What if any of the countless results other than a clear verdict one way or the other that happens all the time in these cases occurs? The evidence from point 3 is pretty massive, and you must as well indicate what at all could lead you to assert that this evidence itself could somehow be sufficiently overturned to allow Kolko back as an educator.<BR/>4) You can't speak for Student to say "he's saying don’t accept it as factual truth and assume guilt, but he’s not saying that all the necessary precautions shouldn’t be taken." If he meant that, he could say it.<BR/>5) It's not a "he said he said" match. There's no response from Kolko, no response from Margulies, no response from Torah Temimah. And you also have to ask exactly what determinations a court would be asked to make in this case: there will almost certainly be no physical evidence, and it will almost surely rely wholly on the testimony of the plaintiffs coupled with evidence of opportunity and a lack of specifically contravening evidence. That's not very distant from where we're at now.<BR/>6) The Jewish Week is almost certainly less careful about making allegations than New York Magazine. This speaks to a pro-Jewish bias in evaluating evidence that is utterly baseless and likely the opposite of what it should be.<BR/>7) I don't see Student or you "lean[ing] sympathetically to the alleged victims, and rightfully so." In this latest post, you've come part of that way, in saying that "there is reason to believe them." And the mid-point stonewalling of "I don't know" only serves to reinforce a status quo that is already biased against the victims and in favor of the rabbis.<BR/>8) You don't respond to my point about Student not telling us "what *would* be credible enough, and why any Jewish institutional apparatus would be capable of producing a more credible account." This aims at the heart of Student's post: if we imagine that everything from his post comes to fruition (which, as I say in my post, shows a lack of engagement with the track record of advocating against abuse in the Jewish, and particularly Orthodox Jewish, community) we're still left with claims of abuse that are no more credible than we have in, say, the Kolko case. So the school administration receives some allegations, interviews students, attempts to interview the rabbi accused, and fires him. Now another school wants to hire him: why is the record of evidence any more credible in this hypothetical case than that we already have in the Kolko case? Simply put, it's not.<BR/>9) Adopting a position of not leaving one's kids in a rabbi's hands, while saying "I don't know" is not taking a middle ground. It's taking one position for yourself and your family, and another for the community.<BR/>10) "But we must not presume guilt, or we open up the door to easy false allegations which destroy lives." When it was just a bunch of anonymous allegations on an anonymous blog, sure. But the mounting evidence of the past month or so has plainly put us in the position of demanding at the very least a suspension until a resolution of the lawsuits. And we need to be prepared, as I've suggested above, for a variety of results that do not include a clear verdict, either way.<BR/>11) "Nobody is saying it's close." Presumably, then you have a different reading than I do of Student's statement that "Many charges are false but some are true." As to "swing[ing] from one extreme to the other," that's why I'm saying there needs to be a real confrontation with the evidence. It's a lot of relatively credible evidence, given what we know about all the elements (for those who do know about all the elements, and how close to impossible it is that all these elements would cohere in an abuse case like this to produce a false result; a broader engagement with abuse and clergy abuse in general, and the advocacy about it in the Jewish community in the past couple decades, would almost surely produce a different set of thoughts than Student's, for reasons I've outlined here and previously).<BR/>12) "At least coverups can be broken at some point; but if you’re shouting and everyone’s ignoring you, you’re stuck." Saying "I don't know" and nothing else <I>is</I> ignoring the claims.<BR/>13) "His allegations should be accepted simply because he brought it to court?" No, I mean that one has to engage with the evidence available, and sort it out according to one's presumptions of relative credibility, and be open to being challenged on those points, which is what I wrote. I have no idea how you drew your inference from the passage you quote just above it.<BR/>14) "I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, particularly Gil (or myself)." I don't see where there's any evidence that Student agrees with what I wrote, that there's any need to seriously engage Framowitz's claims at this point, or that investigative reporting should be part of our evaluation of a rabbi's suitability to serve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1148416801462847372006-05-23T16:40:00.000-04:002006-05-23T16:40:00.000-04:00Thank you.Thank you.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1148416713094750052006-05-23T16:38:00.000-04:002006-05-23T16:38:00.000-04:00What I posted to Canonist:I agree that the thresho...What I posted to Canonist:<BR/><BR/>I agree that the threshold for suspending and investigating is much lower than proof. Many not every accusation requires suspension but most do.<BR/><BR/>I’m not in a position to suspend the teacher under question nor to investigate him. His employer is certainly obligated to spend the time and money investigating him. And anyone who directly or indirectly supports him or his employer should make it their business to be involved with such an investigation or at least to know that it is ongoing and conducted properly.<BR/><BR/>But I have no reason to spend the time and money on it and therefore have to reserve judgment.<BR/><BR/>There is a concept of “le-meichash ba’ei” — even if you don’t believe it you have to be cautious in case it is true. That is why I would not allow my sons in his class until this matter is conclusively resolved. <BR/><BR/>ADDITIONALLY:<BR/><BR/>What happened with Lanner was that those who support NCSY demanded a suspension and investigation. That is entirely consistent with what I think should occur.Gil Studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12776831546758682126noreply@blogger.com