Citing a Title IX complaint, the lawsuit claims that the university’s failure to crack down harder on male behavior was in part responsible for the sensational crime in which a fellow lab worker strangled the pharmacology student and stuffed her body into a wall. [Yale Daily News, Slate “XX Factor” (despite feminist sympathies, doubting basis for suit), New York Daily News] More: Scott Greenfield, Max Kennerly.
7 Comments
typical feminist use of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’
Oh the irony. The epitome of political correctness, Yale University, is accused of fostering an environment of sexual harassment.
Hmmm, Title IX violation. Let’s think about this … Title IX generally relates to sports. Are they saying that body wall stuffing is a male sport and the university must have an equivalent female sport?
If anything, every university has created a climate of hated against MALES, not females.
I can see why they want to try to introduce evidence of the Title IX problems in their wrongful death case, but I don’t see any causal connection there. They have a weak (but non-frivolous) negligent hiring case, and that’s all. See linked post.
Max, I read your blog entry and if as you say the strongest claim is predicated on the hiring of Clark himself then I fail to see how the suit is not frivolous.
the New Haven Independent reported that Clark forced his high school girlfriend to have sex with him when they were students …
Of course the ellipses leaves out the fact that he was never convicted or even tried for that alleged crime as the charge was dropped by the alleged victim. And in any case his juvenile record was sealed. Even an intelligence agency that requires special access clearances does not have access to sealed records.
In addition to Clark’s records, the suit alleges Yale had access to information about Clark’s violent past because the University also employed Clark’s sister and brother-in-law as laboratory technicians in the 10 Amistad St. building where Le was killed. Those two employees were both “well aware” of Clark’s past behavior given their relationship to him, the suit claims.
I’m afraid that that claim doesn’t pass the laugh test. If a company employs more that one member of the same family are they supposed to interrogate each member of the family to ascertain any dirt about the other members? How are they supposed to do this, by giving them the third degree? Any such attempt to pry into the private lives of their employees would lead to a lawsuit that the company would surely lose.
Clark, as a lab technician, didn’t come into frequent contact with the public, but he did have a “special relationship” with the employer, in that he had authorized access both to the lab at 10 Amistad and the lab within there that Le worked in.
As to assertion that he had a special relationship with the employer because he was authorized access to the building, how is that a unique condition for Yale? Pray tell where that is not the case for anybody who is employed by any company. By definition of working for a company you will have contact with other employees of the company.
By the way, if you had read the comment section in the YDN article you would have seen that there is more to this lawsuit that meets the eye. It was not the family of Le that brought the suit but her biological mother.
Ah, it must be “straining at gnats” day…