Blame the university presses
More on Ian Buruma’s departure from the NYRB, in the National Post:
A former editor at the New York Review of Books says he stands by his decision to publish a controversial essay written by disgraced former radio host Jian Ghomeshi.
Ian Buruma has told Vrij Nederland, a Dutch magazine, that it is ironic that he has lost his job after publishing a theme issue about #MeToo offenders who had been convicted on social media, but not in court.
Well, you could also say it is ironic that a man decided to run a story about a man who, several women claimed, got a good deal too rough during sex. You can say anything is ironic. I for one keep finding it “ironic” that so many men are more interested in the complaints of men who are told to stop assaulting women than they are in the women who say they were assaulted. I say potato, you say hasn’t he suffered enough.
The essay sparked an online backlash who said the former CBC radio host should not have been given such a prestigious platform to write an unchallenged first-person piece.
Buruma says he was not fired from the prestigious literary magazine, but felt forced to resign after it became clear that university publishers who advertise in the Review of Books were threatening a boycott.
Ian Buruma, 66, had been editor of the New York Review of Books for 16 months.
His interview with Slate magazine defending the publication, drew outraged on social media.
He told the publication: “In a court of law he was acquitted, and there is no proof he committed a crime.”
He continues: “The exact nature of his behaviour – how much consent was involved – I have no idea, nor is it really my concern.”
Mr Buruma says the point of the article is to discuss the fallout and “social opprobrium” that follows such a case.
He says: “My interest in running this piece is the point of view of somebody who has been pilloried in public opinion and what somebody like that feels about it. It was not run as a piece to exonerate him.”
Not to exonerate, but to invite sympathy, interest, concern…while ignoring the women he got a little too forceful with. We do wonder why so much curiosity about him and so zero about them.
And what is an acquital? Importantly, it is not a finding of “innocent”, it is a finding of “not guilty”. He has not been found to be guilty. That doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty, it just means he hasn’t been found so.
Not necessarily true. Rather, there was insufficient proof to say it is beyond reasonable doubt that he committed a crime.
As others have pointed out in previous threads, courts have many standards of proof that are used for different types of cases, and “beyond reasonable doubt” is the strictest of these, reserved for criminal cases where the consequences of the state accidentally (or intentionally) convicting an innocent person are the most offensive to notions of justice and freedom. Other, less strict standards of proof are used by courts in other types of case, and I see no reason why a private individual should feel obliged to limit themselves to only the most burdensome of them (or indeed any of them) when deciding what to personally believe.
Karellen – and to add to that, the burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is placed on juries, who are not necessarily well trained in any of the relevant fields, and who are often swayed by emotionalistic testimony over rationalistic. There have been a lot of cases of people being convicted who were not guilty, but also lots of cases of people acquitted who were guilty, and in some cases even in the face of strong enough evidence to convict (the Bundy gang being a case in point on the last). Rape convictions are actually pretty rare, and I think quite a bit of that is the “he said, she said” aspect of much of the evidence, coupled with a tendency to discount the strength of the “she said” part while inflating the strength of the “he said” part. There may have been good enough evidence to convict (I don’t know, I didn’t follow the case that closely) and still gotten an acquittal.
He was ‘concerned’ enough to give Ghomeshi a platform… but not enough to have any ‘concern’ about the charges, or Ghomeshi’s character?
The Bundys, and OJ Simpson, have demonstrated that anyone can find an audience that will accept the absence of a jail sentence as positive character witness.
This says a lot:
https://jezebel.com/man-who-strangled-woman-unconscious-wont-serve-jail-tim-1829192899
It’s a famous aphorism among lawyers and aspiring lawyers that if one ever finds oneself on the docket, they should demand a trial by judge(s) if they’re actually innocent, whereas they’d be well served by a jury trial if they were guilty. I leave it up you to draw any conclusions about what that means for the integrity of the judicial system.
further fact checking from the reporter who initially published the Ghomeshi scandal:
http://www.canadalandshow.com/fact-checking-jian-ghomeshis-comeback-essay/
Apparently the NYRB has issued a statement that takes issue with some of Buruma’s claims. Among other things — the Ghomeshi piece did NOT go through regular editorial channels, and was only reviewed by one (male) editor (unclear to me if that was Buruma himself, or someone in addition to him).