Family of Slain Student Sues Yale, Saying It Fails to Protect Women

September 6, 2011, 9:43 pm

The family of Annie Le, the Yale University graduate student who was killed in a research building by a laboratory technician in 2009, filed a lawsuit against the university and its medical school today, accusing the university of failing to “ensure the safety and security of women,” the Hartford Courant reported. Lawyers for the family said Ms. Le was a victim of a climate of tolerance toward sexual harassment and assault that led some women to file a Title IX complaint against the university, which the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is investigating. In a statement, the university said that there was “no basis” for the suit and that “no reasonable security measures could have prevented” the attack on Ms. Le.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

Guest

Sue the Ivy League blowhards until Old Campus gets put on E-Bay. The Yale scoundrels haven’t paid their share of city taxes since 1701, and yet they love to churn out Democrats who run for office claiming to fight for the little guy. I hope the Le family asks for half the endowment.
electronicmuse

Seems that most homicides don’t happen because some entity created a “climate.” Murder is the act of a depraved individual, and no amount of “investigating” is likely to provide a credible outcome that proves otherwise. Of course, such an idea won’t have any outcome on this litigation, will it? Somebody always has to be held “responsible” in our society besides the actual perpetrator, particularly in the politically correct mind. Especially if the fall guy happens to have deep pockets.

Why is it that many people assume that “the campus” is somehow immune to all the vagaries and illnesses that afflict the world at large? It isn’t. The fact that some event has occurred on campus is not prima facie evidence that a “tolerance” for such event(s) exists on campus, or anywhere else, for that matter. If this were true, then the police should be held responsible (and financially liable) for all crimes, since they don’t seem to be able to stop them . . . big campus, that.

If a man had been murdered on Yale’s campus, what “climate of tolerance” might one then reasonably point to? In that case, the university putatively would have failed ” . . . to ensure the safety and security of [men].”

Perhaps one might reasonably conclude that “the university” can’t ensure the safety and security of ANYBODY? Manifestly, the police didn’t in this case.
jmwh7018

How does the amount of taxes paid by the institution affect whether or not they are culpable in this situation? Are you saying they should be sued and lose simply because they have financial resources and don’t pay taxes? What about churches or other tax exempt organizations? I’m confused by your viewpoint.
thedoctorisin

I agree with you. However, in the interest of intellectual honesty, did you feel the same way about the recent Tucson massacre, or did you, like so many others in academia, including most of my colleagues, rush to blame it on “hateful right wingers?” Just askin’.
electronicmuse

I’m a real pragmatist. For instance, if belief in a religion keeps someone from sticking a shiv between my ribs, then I’m for it. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that I subscribe to that particular dogma.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve been playing a lot of golf lately, and not watching the news a lot. I don’t even know about the Tucson massacre. [Editoral note: upon reflection, I realized you must be speaking of the event of some months ago, where a child and others were slain, and a US Senator was grievously wounded. The "recent" part threw me off.] As Paul Simon wrote: “I get all the news I need on the weather report.” Again, pragmatism; there are just SO many things about which I can do little or nothing. Of course I usually have an “opinion,” but at the end of the day, I tend to restrict actual actions on my part to those things about which I can do something. I frankly don’t consider this sort of “blogging slogging” as an “action” per se-it’s more a form of passive entertainment. Of course, this opens me up to claims that [I] “don’t care,” but I fail to see how stewing about things is a praiseworthy activity . . . a lot of people do nothing but stew. I pick my battles judiciously . . .

So, why bother to answer CHE posts? Because I’m vain enough to imagine that, due to certain training in rhetoric, scenario development, symbolic logic, and such ilk, that I might be able to shed more light than heat on some issues. We got a lot of heat and very little light in our public discourse in general . . . I’m less concerned about who is “right” than I am about whether people become aware of less than useful rhetorical devices . . . even intelligent people are not immune . . . being “wrong” is less critical than being unable to frame an inquiry.

Thanks for asking! By the way, you are the only other person to whom I’ve “spoken” in a long time who actually asked about “intellectual honesty.” If it’s what I think it is, it means that it’s a piece of cake to simply be “honest,” and tell the “truth.” Intellectual honesty must be bone deep, and requires us to abandon positions we come to understand as threadbare, to admit our foibles, etc. Intellectual honesty probably embodies the strength to cease “defending ourselves” and explaining our “positions.” It embodies so many things other than simply “telling the truth.” But, I reckon you must already know this . . .

Uh, and I don’t usually “rush to judgment” about a felon’s politics, or anywhere else (except to the golf course). I try to suspend judgment even about whether someone alleged to be a felon actually is one. I would make a pretty good juror-except for the fact that I know about jury nullification.

Oops, seems I didn’t really answer your question. When murder is committed (that shiv), it hardly seems critical to know the politics of the perpetrator, as that individual does not necessarily represent the group. The decedent remains deceased, regardless of whether the perpetrator is left-wing, right-wing, or middle of the bird-that pragmatism again.

The determinants of human behavior fall along very well-known axes, but motivation per se is one of the murkiest arenas-for felons or saints-an arena in which one can only speculate. One of the things I detest about the News Machine is how they allow “pundits” to go ON AND ON, speculating about things about which they know absolutely NOTHING. Evidently the public has an endless appetite for schadenfreude whenever a sensational story breaks-I detest it.