Opinion guest column

The dangerous values behind the Lewin lecture takedown

MIT’s anti-academic gesture sets a precedent, but not the one it talks about

With luck, the world will frown on the example set by MIT in taking down Walter Lewin’s physics lectures from OpenCourseWare.

Contrary to the investigators’ claims, the takedown will do nothing even to inhibit contact — let alone harassment — between Lewin and future students. No one will find him in MIT’s directory, and any Internet search for him will return reams of references to the present scandal. At the same time, Lewin no longer has access to records of anyone viewing his lectures — on OCW, in fact, such records do not even exist. With these channels closed, even to talk to future students, he would have to somehow find them and convince them of his bona fides without them ever looking him up.

Consider the story of the allegations actually brought against him by Faïza Harbi, as reported the Friday before last in Inside Higher Ed. First, she created a Facebook group for students in Walter Lewin’s online course. Then, to join the group, Lewin proved his identity (as she sensibly requested) by accessing her private data on edX as the course instructor. Later, after Lewin pursued her to the point of discomfort, she “felt trapped” by the authority figure and the situation further escalated. Every step in this ultimately sordid affair hinges on Lewin’s role as online course instructor: remove him from edX alone, and it would not have happened.

By removing his official contact information, responsibilities, and titles, MIT has already exhausted its practical influence in limiting his communications. In contrast, by removing Lewin’s lectures from OCW, MIT only bolsters the minute chance that someone might reach Lewin unawares. If his millions of viewers are diverted to other sites, he might conceivably lure more fans by planting a point of contact somewhere else.

Even in the event that future students correspond with Lewin, his loss of official status has removed any basis for sexual harassment — at least, any basis connected with MIT. If Lewin ever again manages to forge inappropriate relationships, MIT will play no part in it, regardless of the availability of his lecture videos.

Investigator Krishna Rajagopal has proposed that Lewin’s lecture videos on OCW are like “performances … on MIT’s stage,” rather than like tapes on MIT’s shelf. Let’s dispel this dangerous analogy: MIT is not merely declining to produce new works, like Bill Cosby’s former sponsors. Instead, it’s erasing works that it’s already sponsored and published, solely because of their association to a disgraced individual. Even though Lewin’s alleged wrongdoings pale in comparison to Cosby’s, no serious person asks that Cosby’s publishers stop printing his best-known books. Similarly, The Tech hosts its own digital archives on MIT’s domain, yet no one complains that this grants a media “stage” to the former managers and staff who embezzled its funds. OpenCourseWare is an archive, not a theater. Removing materials from OCW is not cancelling a performance: it’s setting a fire in the library.

The charges of book burning are not hyperbole. MIT is doing it for the same contemptible reasons that other self-righteous perpetrators always have: to limit certain works’ exposure to the populace, and demonstrate its own power to enforce its moral judgments. Already, MIT’s values are being frighteningly construed by the outside world: Inside Higher Ed reports matter-of-factly that “MIT has not been able to remove all trace of Lewin from the internet” — implying that if it could, it would. While The Tech’s recent editorial may deny it, the slope is slippery indeed.

Such intellectual destruction erupts inevitably when works of art and science enjoy no regard independent of personal verdicts about their authors. Indeed, investigator Peter Fisher believes that “the separation of the artist from the art takes some time” — and apparently, that it is his prerogative, and not that of individual viewers, to set the pace.

By all public accounts thus far, Lewin violated the standards of MIT’s community, and may well deserve to be expelled from it. But erasing his historical contributions to the world violates standards of much longer standing, and in the long run, this violation is far more troubling.

Thomas Coffee is a Ph.D. candidate and an alumnus of the Class of 2005.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

By taking down Lewin's OCW lectures MIT is making a bold statement. The MIT decision exists in a cultural milieu that for a long time has accepted the behavior of Lewin, Crosby and their ilk. If we think that as a MIT community and a wider society that Lewin's behavior is wrong, let's make a strong statement to this end. That is what MIT did. Bravo! A library fire, gets attention and demonstrates that this type of behavior will not be tolerated at MIT. Thankfully this decision has not erased Lewin's masterful teaching for those who still want to view it, but it did make very clear that MIT is striving for a culture of zero tolerance toward sexual harassment.

Thomas Coffee over 8 years ago

#1: It sounds like you believe book burnings are indeed justified by ideological absolutism. As my earlier letter to the editor pointed out, MIT could make an even stronger statement, for the same ostensible reasons, by also destroying copies of Lewin's research publications. Is there a limit to what you're willing to destroy in order to scare people into being nice to each other?

Unlike The Tech's editorial board, you obviously believe the lectures are a significant loss, or you wouldn't argue (like MIT spokesman Nate Nickerson) that the persistence of other copies on the Internet somehow mitigates the damage. What kind of statement do you think it makes when universities justify suppressing educational works by the hope that the public will safeguard them instead?

Anonymous over 8 years ago

It's wonderful that MIT will not tolerate sexual harassment.

It's unfortunate that they chose to bring down a retired professor because they fell for a distorted package of lies brought to them by a disturbed woman at a convenient time.

MIT should concentrate on bringing down the true

bullies and harrassers, many of which reside in their

own backyard.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

The article is on the whole not very compelling since it has to abide by feel-good PC requirements, where one is not allowed to objectively examine the underlying morality of what happened, and must instead take the accuser at her word, due to the chromosomes involved.

In particular, one must understand that, though we heavily coat most sexual desires we do have in flowers and roses, nearly all consensual sex can be viewed as sordid, and this affair did not seem a particular exception, aside from violation of "the no-sex professor-student relationship," a mostly modern invention which, though baked into MIT policy, well-- if a mature professor and student want to have sex, why should that be wrong?

To most people, sex feels criminal if you don't relate to the circumstances in which it happened. In the past, it may have been homosexuality; now it's starting to become traditional heterosexuality. Is it any surprise how many older women get expensive fertility treatments now? And how fertility is around 1 child per woman in many Western countries (particularly among atheists, who lack values)? It's the death of fair, healthy, traditional heterosexual relationships.

Indeed, I think the more dangerous precedent is accepting subjective, emotional testimony at face value when assigning punishment. When hurt feelings are taken at face value, feelings are easily manipulated for personal gain-- the scripture of old religions, or simply a string of drama-filled relationships, teaches us this.

For instance, importantly, under current United States rules women can cry harassment with no evidence and ruin a man's life. This means certain immoral women can, and do, use baseless harassment claims as an emotional bargaining chip. As a result, there is the story that officers in the military do not let women in their office unless there is a witness present (to avoid a harassment accusation that could get them fired).

Women are the aristocrats of our time, and the incredible power they wield is an ugly, rude, politically incorrect truth. The lesson is to avoid any kind of sexual relationship with a woman at work or with feminists in general. They may say "I want to have sex with you," but things can turn bad very quickly.

Though I do not necessarily condemn MIT's actions, do not support Lewin's actions, and make no claims about Harbi, the issue is a dangerous lack of values, not dangerous ones.

Thomas Coffee over 8 years ago

#3: Do you have reason to believe that Harbi's story, as reported in Inside Higher Ed, is misrepresented? If so, in what way?

I believe that if MIT sincerely wishes to help curb sexual harassment, it should publish the essential findings of its investigation, so that people can better understand how harassment may occur, and how MIT interprets its own vague policies. Again, it would appear that MIT is less interested in explaining its values than in limiting its exposure.

Thomas Coffee over 8 years ago

#4: I have made no attempt to "objectively" examine the underlying morality of Lewin's actions, not because I have been dissuaded from doing so, but because few details are publicly available other than the accuser's word.

For instance, no public statements have even clearly indicated whether the actions MIT deemed to violate its policies occurred during the time Lewin acted as a course instructor. This condition features prominently in many university policies on relationships between students and instructors.

Greater disclosure of MIT's investigation will allow people to better judge whether they agree with its consummated values or lack thereof.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Coffee (6)--

Though you may not realize it, you are adopting a certain story of events. You say things like "Lewin pursued her to the point of discomfort" and that "she 'felt trapped' by the authority figure." You are accepting her version of events as truth, as must be done in polite conversation, and as was necessary to get the column published. This makes everyone (including herself, and probably even Lewin) accept those events even more. This is how one obtains a culture of (well, potential) misinformation. (This is similar to the phenomenon of gaslighting, which often occurs in relationships.)

But an experienced lawyer knows a person's emotional story is often very unreliable. Consider how in Ferguson, after hard evidence came to light, many witnesses admitted they lied, and others changed their story.

Now, if were were to stop assuming that, say, Lewin was pressuring her unfairly or that Lewin was unfairly acting as an authority figure, one starts to arrive at other stories of what happened. But you must be careful with these stories, lest one of them be offensive to the accuser, since this could be considered retaliation in response to a harassment accusation. We must tread very carefully, to avoid ending up "Bullied and Badgered, Pressured and Purged" (Google the phrase to see a list of victims of PC culture).

If you did not feel dissuaded from publicly examining what happened to Lewin, I hope you do so now. I'm just looking out for you since you seem like an honest guy.


Thomas Coffee over 8 years ago

#7: I agree that the story in Inside Higher Ed has not been publicly corroborated by other evidence, which is why I was careful to refer to it as the "story of the allegations ... as reported ...". My point in mentioning the story is that, even admitted at face value, it supports my contention that the severing of Lewin's official relationship with MIT removes any basis for sexual harassment by Lewin for which MIT could reasonably accept any responsibility.

To be clear, the reason I have not critically examined the story is not because I believe it's wrong to do so, but because the necessary evidence has been withheld. While I disagree that MIT should expel community members on the basis of secret investigations, this is not at all unprecedented, and is not the focus of my column.

On the other hand, I believe it is unprecedented for MIT to erase published scholarly works from public view due to personal charges against an author. While MIT justifies its actions on the basis of probable harm to hypothetical victims, I argue that this justification is absurd, and that the resulting precedent casts a shadow far beyond the service of justice in this particular case.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

MIT should have treated Lewin as mentally ill and acted with some compassion towards him. He is an elderly man confronted by a whole new world of technological social interfaces.

Restraining orders should have been put in place in conjunction with medical advice. A public notice should have been posted for students participating on the course not to interact with anyone claiming to be Lewin.

And that should have been the end of the matter.

MIT's actual actions were just stupid - and I wish they will face severe litigation to teach them not to behave so stupidly again.

walter lewin over 8 years ago


He is the greatest news reporter. It's absurd the way he is being treated and humiliated. Shame on NBC.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


to Walter Lewin:

And meanwhile you post about a topic that is clearly not the one treated here.

Is it to make you look senile? To exist somehow at MIT?

Is it to finally talk about the case you're invovled in, and tell us all what we want to know:

Why are you not defending yourself against false allegations if those allegations are indeed entirely made up or misused, misinterpreted to push you out?

What are your lawyers doing?

What is your family doing?

Why did your wife resign from MIT before the December MIT's release?

You just keep posting here and there about non related subjects, and even I start to find it odd that nobody, whether it's yourself or your family, is going after Harbi and/or MIT for wrongful accusations?

We all want answers obviously, so please, give us something Mr. Lewin.

Your silence is really really loud now.

Freedom over 8 years ago


You asked a retired MIT professor a string of eight accusatory questions in a disrespectful tone.

Lewin is an elderly person who has worked hard throughout his career to enrich the lives of others. What have you done?

Anonymous over 8 years ago


What have I done:

Not engaged in long distances sexual relationship where I am so appealing it raises no question in my mind about the possibility that something is off with what I am doing. This is something I have certainly not done.

Calling yourself Freedom doesn't change the fact that your very first sentence gave you out Mr. Lewin.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


And I can also rule out the weak and senile (or almost senile) nearly 80-year-old hypothesis.

It is obviously not the case.

Also ruled out for others: The unfamilar with social media and internet 80-year-old man not knowing how and what to do and not do, don't you think Mr. Freedom or Mr.Lewin, whichever suits you best?

Anonymous over 8 years ago


It does appear he engaged in an indecent sexual relationship which risked both his and MIT's reputation. He is a flawed person, but he has had a successful career and helped many people.

Who are you trying to help with your anger? I don't think it's your job to attack him.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Attacking "him" would be, in such threads, accusing him of much more terrible things than what the MIT and the journalists who saw the material did; which is what is being done with both parties, assuming that one is a complete and crazy twisted liar, and the other, an almost 80-year-old man who is the one being abused. Both cases are attacks, plain and simple, and mean ones as they have no solid bases whatsoever. Only suppositions, assumptions based on how well people know other people's way to think; how men know women, how women know men.

So, no, Mr."Anonymous" , I am not angry, and I am not attacking anyone.

And everybody is flawed. I don't see how being flawed is related to any of this.

As for my job, it has nothing to do with Mr.Lewin nor MIT. Interesting how you see anger there.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

It shows how down and dirty #11 is to criticize Prof. Lewin's

family.They can't find anything wrong with what he did

so they lower themselves to get personal. That really is despicable and The Tech should not have allowed it.

By letting their jealousy go public, the public knows who you are.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


I did absolutely not criticize Mr.Lewin's family. Read what I wrote again and you will only see me, as well as thousands of other people wondering why nobody is suing MIT if all those "allegations" are false. That includes Mr.Lewin, and if he is too old or senile as many have suggested, his family.

That and only that.

So if I am dirty by asking who nobody is suing for him Harbi, then I wonder what some others are.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

#18 EDIT

"So if I am dirty by asking who nobody is suing for him Harbi, then I wonder what some others are."

Need I say that I meant:

So if I am dirty because I am asking WHY nobody is suing Harbi on his behalf, then I wonder what some others(people here)are.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

To the obnoxious poster asking why Lewin is not suing (nice rhyme) - maybe he hasn't the resources or the mental and physical strength, and maybe his family and friends don't want to put him through an extended ordeal in his final years of life. It is one of the great achievements of the feminists that their bullying tactics are so effective - especially against the weak.

Note how feeble they are against the hugely influential rappers and twerkers - you know, young people who can just say "fuck you"

Nah, like all bullies, they know to prey on the weak.

Freedom over 8 years ago

20-- Yup. In general, leftists attack successful people who don't have the station or resources to defend themselves. (Think about crabs in a can: a single crab can escape, but when there are multiple crabs they'll grab each other and try to keep each other from escaping.)

Though I don't know all the details of the case, by the looks of it, MIT should call this "inappropriate use of the MITx platform," not "sexual harassment."

His alleged jokes on Twitter were harmless, albeit not "politically correct." Though I feel sorry for the victim and hope she receives proper help, mutually exchanging sexually explicit material speaks for itself.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Honestly, if I were, or if my dad or grand-father were accused of such a nasty behavior, I would sue for him. And so should he. I he loves his courses and all his fans and people around the world who learnt from him AND his way to teach, so much, he, or his family or friends would definitely want his legacy to come back legit.

He made it clear that all his videos, lectures online were his way to make us love physics.

Now, from a friend at MIT in the physics department, not only was he hated by his colleagues he treated as inferiors, and also, Mr.Lewin was far removed from teaching since the introduction of TEAL around 2003, and he hasn't taught a class since then (until the online edX course). The reason for that(officially, internal to MIT) has to do with MIT exploring a more effective way of teaching, as well as an increasing difficulty to work with Lewin due to his difficult personality and declining physicality (this is a side of him that only coworkers get to see, and it's very different from his nice interactions with students).

He is far from senile, and has a very good understanding of social media as well as his so-called puns and humor that makes this behavior look mainstream, so that when it actually cross the line, by far, well, people would simply assume that: He is old, he's weak, he's broke (That one is really based on not knowing how much he makes by conference, with his edX courses, his MIT pension , NASA grant, and above all, his books and art collection we all saw either on facebook or in interviews. It's even on his wikipedia (his close relationships with very well known artists).

I saw people near death, knowing the clock was ticking (cancer, MS) fight with all they have, with the support of if not family, friends, to settle everything, every possible issue, before they ..go.

Mr.Lewin is not fighting for his legacy, his courses, his teaching, what matters to him the most as said in his book "Physics is my life, but art is my love".

He is still posting here for instance, so it matters to him. But not enough to fight for what he calls himself "his life"?

Nobody close to him would defend that officially in his name so that he can live peacefully knowing his life (physics) has been rehabilitated?

Anonymous over 8 years ago


I am sorry, but it's nothing to do with his age or him being weak or not. It's about his "life", to leave to the thousands of people around the world his legacy, and that, concerned and innocent people would find endless ressources to fight for it. Themselves or by proxy. The only right way, the legal way.

I am certainly not going against Mr.Lewin because of his supposedly weakness issues. I am making a point about how a WWII survivor like himself could back off and let one person ruin everything if there wasn't more to that, more that what we know.("WWII survivor": Based on his own words in his books and countless interviews)

As for Harbi, I can barely see anyone claim that, due to her priors (sexual assault) she is unlikely to be a sexual predator, an abuser. I also doubt that MIT would jeopardize its reputation based on her material if there were doubts about her being malicious or a pervert.

I simply say out loud what lots of people are thinking: We need Mr.Lewin one way or another to come forward as a famous person like him would do to defend his honor, legacy, life, everything he worked for.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

#20 "with a friend in the physics dept." You don't cover your tracks so well. You are obsessed with posting comments day

and night to this column, hoping to bait him. What a shame

you have to get personal in your ranting and raving.

You have a jealous and twisted mind. Get over it already:

Prof. Lewin is better than you. His legacy proves that.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Correction: Comment 24 is addressed to #22-23.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Jealousy is not one of my flaws, neither is envy, nor tremendous ego.

His legacy? Well, I think a lot of people made it clear that his legacy is quite tamed, and that his actions are the reason got tamed.

Look in the mirror, look on the internet and see how people are desappointed in Mr.Lewin.

He soiled the physics field and science in general by his behavior.

Not even my words, but those of thousands of men and women of science who see the guy for what he truely is.

As for his legacy, MIT doesn't use it since forever ago. Nobody is doing anything to protect it, due to a so called weakness laziness lack of money.

Please, raise funds to help the poor man who is the victim in a case where an investigation led to conclude that he is the perpetrator, not the victim.

Physics like any other field have unlimited talents.

There is always someone better than you, it's only a matter of being aknowledged.

He will be forgotten before you realize it, and someone that is not a sexual harasser will raise.

It's called the age of the internet.

New people, better than the ones before them come up everyday.

You want to be mad at someone? Be mad at Mr.Lewin for shooting himself in the foot with his disgusting behavior.

Mr.Lewin is certainly better than me in physics, but I am quite proud to not be better than him at using my job to track girls and women all over the globe.

Which is now his legacy.

Grow up and be angry against the right person; and it is not me.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


As for covering my tracks... Ain't that

1. ridiculous

2. Ironic considering who you are "Mr. Anonymous"?

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Prof.Lewin, sexual harasser? How ridiculous.

Sounds like you are the harasser here:

"using my job to track girls and women all over the globe."

Your obsessions are very unhealthy but I'm sure you've

been told that by many psychiatrists.

You just can't let go, the more you write, the more you soil yourself.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

#28 is directed at the "anonymous" #26, not Prof.Lewin

Anonymous over 8 years ago


#22 is mistaken

Professors in the Physics Department have to teach each term. Sometimes "lecturing" sometimes "recitations". I was a student in Professor Lewin's 8.03 lectures in 2004. His Recitation Instructors were Prof. Mavalvala and Ketterlee. This was a "dream team" of super teachers. Lewin also lectured 8.03 in 2005. There are no TEAL versions of 8.03. Prof Lewin was actively teatching till his retirement in 2009.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Even you are not having anything left to excuse "his" behavior.Taking a sentence out of its context to use it to make me look like I said I was using my job to go after girls and women.


No thinking through.

And once again, in what world do you live in to not even take in count a report "he", Mr.Lewin -that you seem to know very very very well, so well that please just post under your actual name, as unlike the rest of us, you have no idea who I am-, who read it, who was interviewed, went under an investigation I doubt to be non existing as it would jeopardize the whole MIT accepts as it is a lie that is beyond what is needed to take MIT down!


Thank you for reacting like a toddler who got punished by having his toy confiscated. In the end, this is pretty much what is happening to Lewin and his legacy.

oh, and I have no single clue about how I am soiling my self by writing what I wrote, which is not something Mr.Lewin can say to himself it seems. And need I say that I am happy to announce that I am not seeing many psychiatrists, that I so far did not need to do that as, well, you can take facts and not end up defending Mr.Lewin who's got many human shields at his dispposal.

Childish reaction, insinuation of some mental issues like a kid would go after another one, but scared, and saying things half-hartedly: Scared.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Please, stop posting as anonymous as it really is obvious that you write so much like Lewin would talk there is "Lewin" all over your posts.

Another point:

I saw litterally ZERO physics teachers, PhDs from MIT take Mr.Lewin's defense. Not one, not a single time. The don't want to hear about Mr.Lewin or they simply missed the news. I am going with the first option.

So, yeah, legacy. I don't think there is any that Mr.Lewin's ex-colleagues want to use, nor teach anymore.

As for obsessions: funny how you are always here to answer my comments and say that I am the one not letting go.

I have no reason to let go a thinking based on facts, where you and many others here have a thinking based on conspiracy theory, assumptions about a chain of events you know nothing about, all in all:

Not being ok with MIT's conclusion because it's not the one you wanted.

Too bad.

It seems that you do not always get what you want. It's called life. And I m not letting the sexual harassment part getting away from this discussion.

We need Mr.Lewin's to speak, to explain how all this is a big misunderstanding.

If it is one.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Academic colleagues can't speak out in support of Lewin because of bullying.

Anything they say, no matter how reasonably argued, will be construed as support for sexual harassment and the hysterical fems will not shut up about it until that colleague suffers in some suitably terrible way to suit their sick minds.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

To 33:

I was almost convinced until I saw 2 words "hysterical fems" and your way to see women.

I guess I'll just ask colleagues of Mr.Lewin their own version of you so called bullying.

Ah, so you also think that there is a sexual harassment involved in this, and Mr. Lewin not being the victim of it?

Anyways, the best way to find out still is to ask academic ex colleagues about what they think. Well I managed to talk to several and their reactions are nothing close to support.

Betrayal is the most commonly used word.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

This entire discussion from 11-34 has taken us off the main topic of the article that MIT made the wrong decision to take down Dr. Lewin's lectures. I commend Mr. Coffee for his courage to write a well reasoned article. #33 is correct. It is not necessarily about explicit bullying. Even the possibility of an unfounded accusation of this sort is enough administrative pain in the rear end to induce people to keep quiet. The broader issue of faculty academic freedom and its erosion by administration is covered in the "The Fall of the Faculty".

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Please note that Vice President of the United States (age 72) attempted to kiss a young girl on national TV without her consent.

Would this not fit the definition of attempted sexual assault? The girl was leaning back, and he was leaning in trying to get the kiss.

Isn't sexual assault a worse crime than sexual harassment? Why are we ganging up on Lewin and not the Vice President of the US?

Anonymous over 8 years ago

There is no such thing as a unit of measure like sexual harassment is worse than insults, but sexual assault is worse than sexual harassment.

It is all about how the woman/girl/man/boy feels about it. How wounded the person is from these actions. Two people can live the same event and one can keep going as if nothing happened and the other can be completely destroyed from the inside. Traumas. They have their way of working and each and every one of us is different in handling events.

I didn't see teh Vicd President's footage of what you're talking about, and I like to be very careful as not to jump to conclusions in general(not meaning that you are wrong on this #36) based on footage broadcast in the news with a lot of comments and journalists , consultants giving their opinion without even having both sides of the same story: the VP and the girl.

So, my point is (apart from being extra careful about the both sides of a story, which is ok here, since MIT investigated both Lewin and the the woman):

There is no such thing as a ranking for bad behavior(to be very polite). As odd as it sounds, and it will probably remind you of some things, we all saw that, people can really seem to overreact on what we see as "nothing" and we don't get why they are as calm as a buddhist monk when we are completely outraged.

When it comes to that, we really all are not equals.

Rehbock over 8 years ago

MIT appears too incompetent to be allowed near such.matters.

They should reinstate Lewin. All that has been disclosed amounts to nothing. Hope lewin sues.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Wow Rebhock.

So no assumptions here, no use of conditional: He is innocent, plain and simple.

As for MIT's incompetence in the field...I'm not sure to get put those 3 things together: MIT incompetence and "near such matters".

It's absolutely not ironic; my questionning here is absolutely and totally genuine.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Lewin is in this article. Not talking, but he's in it. So is Harbi

Anonymous over 8 years ago

"Harbi, a former sex abuse victim, who agreed to reveal them when she reached out to Inside Higher Ed."

Never legally proven; MIT simply believed her (and not Prof. Lewin)in order to get kudos (and $) from government. The article,like MIT, believed her too. She has everyone fooled with her power trip and unfortunately Prof. Lewin has been made

a scapegoat just like so other innocent men.The woman messed up and now needs to blame someone.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


I m quite curious to know what are your proofs that Harbi was just believed, like that, simple and the best way for MIT to open the door to any suit ( As a matter of fact , since Lewin had lawyer advice, normal, they would have ripped that off IMHO, or Lewin has the worst lawyers ever. Or lawyer, I don't know if it's one or more).

Also, on what bases do you back up Harbi's "power trip" and how she pull that out, making Lewin a scrapegoat as you claim he is innocent.

Assumption is one thing, claiming stuff like that, it's another story, that's for sure.

You went for the "that's how things happened" option, so, I'd be curious as for what bases you rely on to backup what you wrote? (Simple question)

Socialist Worker over 8 years ago

MIT posts what it wants on its websites. It prints what it wants on MIT Press. To require that the government order MIT to keep something in print or online would be a violation of free speech and association.

Right or wrong MIT cannot be compelled by the government to keep up stuff up, remove stuff, or add what it no longer feels prudent, desirable or necessary.

Freedom over 8 years ago


Umm that's exactly what the government did... Learn how the real world works please...

If scholarly, honest professors were in charge (think pre-1960), there would be very few female students and stringent sexual harassment policies wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. The policies we see know are precisely due to INTERVENTION by a democratic government; not due to MIT trying to serve its competitive interests as an institution of higher learning.

An intelligent person understands that the stringent guidelines on sexual harassment flow from the government and the media (via public schooling, trashy publications like NYTimes, etc.), and put MIT in a spot where it MUST enforce them in a totalitarian fashion. If they don't forcefully punish Lewin, they risk (a) tons of media smears (blackmailing, shakedowns, libel, "sexism" and "misogyny" accusations, etc.), and (b) threats of reduced federal funding (Title IX violations, blacklisting, etc.). I'm not joking here-- that's what happens if you don't adopt a totalitarian attitude on sexual harassment, both real and imagined. (In this case, seemingly imagined because it sure resembled a consensual relationship.)

Another reason the government controlled MIT's decision: the decision was reached mostly by entrenched, low-IQ, brainwashed bureaucrats who have the reins, in large part because they're allied with the government. Generally, the growing bureaucracies within colleges stifle academic freedom. Read some Paglia.

MIT punishing Lewin was not a free choice. I WISH MIT was not compelled by the government to forcefully punish Lewin, but the fact is it WAS, and the government's influence is so entrenched it's impossible to reverse the decision.

These events would've been unthinkable in 1955, when American academia was much more prestigious. The prestige of American academia will continue to decline as America continues to decline into the socialism you advocate.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


So you're basically saying that the whole consipiracy thing goin on in this thread is..well, nothing but a conspiracy?

That's what I understood, but I m not sure.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Mr. Freedom is back!!

Now this is the most hilarious, sad and ridiculous consiracy theory (well not for you, obviously) I 've heard or read since a very long time.

That one thing I like, Mr. Freedom, is how what everything you state as facts, or claim to be The Truth, the One and only, is backed up by nothingness.

Well, it's pretty much how most consiracy theories work, but I have to admit, going so far with absolutely nothing is something to be rememebered.

Remembered as pathetic. "How to lose your credibility for Dummys" could have that material in it.

Freedom over 8 years ago


No need at all to be upset! I'm just correcting Socialist Worker's comment (43).

If you want find support for my claims, we may begin by looking at professor-student relationships pre-1960:

Quote (from psmag.com):

"" Harvard Dean Henry Rosovsky, introducing the [anti-relationship] policy at his school, wrote that relationships between teachers and students were "always wrong." John Kenneth Galbraith, emeritus professor of economics at the school, publicly wondered how he, who had been married to a former graduate student for almost 50 years, should atone for his sins. The dean replied, basically, that the Galbraiths had nothing to worry about because they had met and married back when "amour -- instructional and noninstructional -- was in fashion." So the relationships were "always wrong" except, well, in the 1930s, when they apparently werent at all wrong. ""

Notice Rosovsky uses the word "amour" to explain away his lie (that's what Ivy League people do-- learn obscure words to win the politics game). Consider what actually happened: the Galbraiths had a loving, monogamous, consensual relationship. Why should this be illegal? Should not a woman be able to choose her man?

The partial answer is professor-student relationships are illegal because of feminist envy politics. If the student doesn't get what she wants out of a consensual relationship, she can start an angry fuss and blackmail the college. And Puritan Yanks don't like it when others have fun.

The end result is old feminists claiming it's impossible for young students to consent (envy!), the media pushing the narrative that female students in relationships are 'victims,' and students inventing stories about how they were taken advantage of.

Consider the paper Forbidden Love by Dank and Fulda (this is from the 90s, when there was still some sanity left):

"" Given the prevalent caricaturing of student-faculty romances, such relationships give the impression of professorial abuse thus presenting problems for university administrators concerned with public relations and "appearances." [...] The concept of informed consent between adults should be the guiding principle for intimate relations--on or off campus. [...] The right to form adult consensual intimate relationships is a fundamental personal freedom which must be protected.""

Now, I don't think Lewin behaved in a moral way, but I think there was consent. Id elaborate about bureaucrats but out of space.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Dear Mr."Freedom",

I know one kind of people who use your argument to conclude that there was consent, and those people usually are sexual predators too, male or female, it doesn't matter.

But also specific sexual predators. Not all of them are so full of themselves they can actually believe that anyone would fall for them anyways. Like mr. Lewin likes to brag about (I also see that bragging and that thrust for sex and youth as a way to feel young too. Sex and power, the oldest history in mankind. Never ended well so far.).

You may call what you do freedom of speech, I , however call that dangerous and a manipulation of facts, concepts and theories.

Not that I didn't already see you as the person you really are behind that username you also use Mr."Freedom".

Freedom over 8 years ago

Your definition of sexual predator = people more powerful than you engaging in consensual relationships.

Your definition of dangerous = an anonymous voicing of opinions different than what you read in NYTimes.

You have an undeveloped, plebeian morality and demonstrably resort to slurs when you can't get a substantive point across.

I care more about positive, hardworking Americans than people with hateful, jealous attitudes such as the ones you showed.

In the past, people would misleadingly call people of a certain sexual orientation 'sexual predators,' and I think they had a much better point than you do.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Since you are bringing again your way to see consent about that matter, and since, clearly, anger made you misread what I wrote:

You infere from everything you quote in your previous post-women's rights defended by "crazy feminists" (just in case, and because it would be ridiculous to say the opposite: Some feminists are "crazy" and some are simply working on equality between men and women. The right to vote for instance. You should google those ads from back then in the early 20's about suffragettes.- that in the end, the student, the woman or girl (under 21) is consenting, and if she complains it is to get back to the professor/teacher she had a "consentual relationship" with, or/and blackmail the college. No to mention the obscure "feminist envy politics" statement, old feminists fighting so that the young generation doesn't access what they cannot access anymore because of the "old" part of your sentence.

I wonder why there is no mention from you of the woman being talked about in the Harvard Dean Henry Rosovsky vs. John Kenneth Galbraith. Curiously, her opinion is not needed to make your point. Need I remind you how little to no word to say women had in the 30s about the man they would marry?

About the obscure word "amour" that you may've heared quite often-well, when you were somewhere to be found- in its English derivative form, the first name Amy, what is obscure about "amour"? That it is the French word for love?No need to know French to know that word's meaning.

A woman, a girl, a man, is in something contensual if she or he says so(we're not in the 30s anymore thanks goodness and people, regardless their sexual orientation-As long as it's not considered a crime, like the person being way to young for anything of the sort-have the right to choose who they love, and say yes or no. In the UK, Judges were taught until 1999 that a victim of rape was always a liar, a nutcase of some sort, they were advise to not take seriously allegations of rape.

This is the society we live in.Rape is a taboo, sex offenders do not exist, sexual predators are a fantasy to justify the change of mind/heart of a woman who no longer wants to be in a relationship and getting out of it with her head up.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


A predator, by default doesn't ask permission.Applied to humans, it is the same thing, they hunt, they catch and don't let go until they are done.

Seeing homophobia, ignorance(Sure, I don't know everything: Who does?),jealousy or envy in what I wrote is a reflexion of your own self, definitely not a reflexion of my own self.

The simple fact that you twist and change what I call a sexual predator by adding the words consentual and relationships is so ridiculous, the level of your argumentation is really falling down rather fast, "Mr.Freedom".

When out of arguments, burrying someone under biased exemples (incomplete, not neutral) is typical of people who can find nothing else to say to defend their "opinion".

I won't go as low as you and won't make generalizations based on something specific.

Sure, we can find healthy not underaged student/teacher romances, relationships that even end up as a happily married couple.

This is not at all sexual harassment, nor sexual predation. And yes, nowadays, unlike when the Galbraith case happened (which, without Catherine Atwater's point of view regarding the poor documentation on her, could very well be the same as Galbraith: They were in love. Or it could be a different point of view too: The point is we do not have her word about that. That was the 30s indeed.)

There can also be non consentual behaviors. When a no is not really a no, because some people are so full of themselves it's hardly imaginable that a woman could say no and actually mean it.

You can twist, turn upside down the whole world, this stays the same:

When someone decides for two that it is consentual, arguing about consent is one desperate attempt to put some common sense in a twisted mind.

Your conclusion of Harbi being consentsual is based on that: It happened therefore she was consenting.

Hence my statement about how dangerous this conclusion is.

No bounderies. Only what people want and take without asking, or asking but not caring about the answer anyways.

Very dangerous people and very dangerous behavior with that definition of consent you talk about.

Freedom over 8 years ago


" Some feminists are "crazy" and some are simply working on equality between men and women. The right to vote for instance. "

Voting is a privilege to be exercised responsibly, and one should only vote as a form of moral duty. The right to vote is a very complex question, and the differences between men and women is a very non-PC topic, but given the harm women's suffrage has done to the West, I think it is time to secretly, privately realize women should not have the right to vote, just as they do not have the responsibility to register for the draft. (I say secretly, because publicly expressing those views would get your reputation destroyed in the West.) This is not to devalue women (women must and will always have more privilege than men in Western civilization) or to deny women power (women will always have plenty of indirect power over men), this is simply to avoid ruining the West.

Also, when the US constitution was put in place, most MEN did not have the right to vote-- only wealthy, white male landowners did. We had a republic, not a democracy. Also, senators and US presidents were not chosen directly by popular vote, by intentional design-- instead, you voted for representatives who would then vote for senators and presidents. This was, in my opinion, a much better system than what we have now.


" in the end, the student, the woman or girl (under 21) is consenting, and if she complains it is to get back to the professor/teacher "

That is what typically happens, yes. If a woman does not want the relationship, she can simply stop texting sex pictures and spending leisure time with the professor, rather than keep having sex and then crying "harassment" or "rape" afterwards.

Now, let me help you out. One can imagine that in an ideal educational environment, people would not be having sex. Instead, one's sexual energy would be channeled into the duty of educating others and doing careful research. But, surely, professors should still be able to have sex? If a professor is having sex with a student he is not supervising, why would that be wrong?


" I wonder why there is no mention from you of the woman being talked about in the Harvard Dean Henry Rosovsky vs. John Kenneth Galbraith. Curiously, her opinion is not needed to make your point. Need I remind you how little to no word to say women had in the 30s about the man they would marry? "

A happy 68 year old marriage is not enough evidence?

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Even though everybody knows that your writing again and again gives you out, you keep using Mr.Freedom. Upercasing, specific argumentation construction, keywords our preconscious cannot refrain, why keeping using Mr.Freedom while you could sign your post Lewin it would not be less obvious.

As for the time length of a marriage, you seem to be quite ignorant about the topic. A lot of women who didn't have the choice back then are still (say in the 40s, early 50s) married to their husband because this is how you do.

Divorce is a sin in 2 out of 3 monotheist religions.

I cannot say that they were not a happy couple, I don't know that , and nobody knows what happens in a couple's life once the house's door is closed, so, They could have been happy for 68 years or not at all, we cannot really know.

And if being married for a long time were the one a 100 sure evidence of a happy marriage, a consentual marriage, then I am really blind and cannot see the hatred between relatives, people close to me who got married a long time ago, and hate each other. Rapist husband included. I'm not talking about an assumption but about people I know for a long time, and like the rest of our comon relatives, we all witnessed that ugly behaviour.

Long term marriage is not an evidence of happiness, nor consent. It is just a lon term marriage.

Your if a woman doesn't want the relationship etc...

Well going that way, if a mand doesn' t want to be stabbed to death he can simply walk away from the knife and end of the story.

If a woman foesn't want to be raped, she just has to say, scream no, and obviously the rapist would just stop and that 's all.

You know the stats, you know how many fake rape accusations there is for genuine ones. Less than people claiming they witnessed a murder when they didn't, or someone claiming his or her car was stolen to get the insurance money.

So, no. It does not typically Mr. "Freedom" (please stop that fake username nonsense, you're embarassing yourself even more.) happening.

What is typically happening is sexual predators, abusers and the like wanting to hide behind that falsely so-called typical woman's behavior to get out of a no longer wanted relationship.

Because not being appealing is something that obviously cannot happen to people like you.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Fame and money, fame or money is enough for women to get sexually attracted and they come by dozens, hundreds to just brag about how and with who they had intercourse last night to their jealous and full of envy female friends.

A stereotype talking about stereotypes using stereotypes to make non facts mach his non existing factual proof.

You did so much better than this last post.

I m talking about argumentation and your shortcuts to come up with the conclusions you already chose before you started to write.

The negation of a scientific thinking and methods.

The content is, however, getting so disgusting it's become hard to believe that the one behind that username was ever, just once, human.

Humans treat other humans not as objects, as means to ends,regardless the end and the mean being using another human being.

There is something that I see in your post "Mr.Freedom" , and that is an absolute lack of empathy.

Not even a D for that comment of yours, as it is based on nothingness and how you want life to be, not what facts actually show.

Pathetic doesn't even start to cut it.

Freedom over 8 years ago


" As for the time length of a marriage, you seem to be quite ignorant about the topic. A lot of women who didn't have the choice back then are still (say in the 40s, early 50s) married to their husband because this is how you do. "

I approve of arranged marriages, provided both parties consent to marrying. Arranged marriages are as happy as non-arranged marriages-- quote:

" We found absolutely no difference between participants in arranged marriages and those in free choice marriages on the four measures we included in our study. Regardless of the nature of their marriage whether their spouse had been selected by family members/matchmakers or had been personally and freely chosen the participants in our study were extremely (and equally) happy with their relationships. "


Quote: "Divorce is a sin in 2 out of 3 monotheist religions."

Orthodox religion is very wise, and I'm glad you are invoking it. Divorce is indeed a sin; you are violating your marriage vows. I think you should stand by the one you love through the hard days. In this day and age, it'll surprise everyone.

Quote: "You know the stats, you know how many fake rape accusations there is for genuine ones."

Actually, there are no solid statistics on false rape accusations. My current thinking is that most (perhaps ninety percent) of rape accusations are false, but I am not sure of this matter.

Quote: "Well going that way, if a mand doesn' t want to be stabbed to death he can simply walk away from the knife and end of the story.

If a woman foesn't want to be raped, she just has to say, scream no, and obviously the rapist would just stop and that 's all."

Not sexting a guy you'll regret dating is different than screaming no at a violent rapist. The former is choosing not to do something, and involves exercising free will and basic common sense. The latter involves fighting back at a dangerous criminal, and is dangerous and ineffective.

Women have a responsibility to do the former, not the latter.

Quote: "Fame and money, fame or money is enough for women to get sexually attracted and they come by dozens, hundreds to just brag about how and with who they had intercourse last night to their jealous and full of envy female friends. "

Fairly true.

Quote: "an absolute lack of empathy"

Freedom, prosperity, safety is a lack of empathy?

Freedom over 8 years ago


I said-

"fighting back at a dangerous criminal, and is dangerous and ineffective."

Actually, fighting back at dangerous, violent criminals is effective at deterring crime. I support women who fight back against violent rapists, and I support women carrying guns to deter violent rapists-- this is very responsible. I was wrong to say it's ineffective.

My point is that one should not expect women to be able to stop violent crime. However, one should expect women to AVOID ACTING as if they are in a relationship (e.g. texting nude pictures) with people they do not want to be in a relationship with. That is dishonest, and if it turns out the relationship was unwanted, blame often does not rest on the man.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Or should I say Mr.Lewin, can you actually handle a conversation without quoting people from here and there, including psychologytoday?

You lack empathy that much you need to go fetch and answer in a psychology review?

"My current thinking is that most (perhaps ninety percent) of rape accusations are false, but I am not sure of this matter."

How courageous of you to dare say that 9 rape victims out of 10 are mythomaniacs. Adding a safety net "but I am not sure of this matter".

Have the guts to defend what you believe in. You are sure or you are not. Throwing numbers out of nowhere is the weapon of the weak, unable to indeed, handle an discussion, using those numbers as decoys.

The only one you're fooling is yourself.

Orthodox is not per say part of the 3 big monotheistic religions. It's a branch of Christianity.

I was, how ironic! Talking about Islam. The Qoran specifies tht if the husband or the wife (or both) is unhappy, then they should end the marriage rather than live unhappy.

Please be my guest and check that very clearly written part of the Qoran.

Your-my my so many ...-other mistake is to associate rapist and violent. Now you can check those numbers: Almost all rape perpetrators are relatives, neighbours, family friend. Someone the victim knows.

Rape is incredibly violent. The rapist's weapon is not like what you see in most movies. It's not violence. Not the physical one. It is sometimes too as if the main weapon, psychological violence wasn't enough.

"Quote: "Fame and money, fame or money is enough for women to get sexually attracted and they come by dozens, hundreds to just brag about how and with who they had intercourse last night to their jealous and full of envy female friends. "

Fairly true. "

If you are unable to read a short text and see a statement where what is written is full of irony and sarcasm from A to Z, and agreeing with that, even more, it seems like your "Fairly true" comes from what you see as personal experience.

Your understanding of women is equal to zero. You think you do know women, but you only know your fantasies, the women from your fantasies and tanspose them in real life.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Empathy is caring about others. So no, freedom, prosperity and safety have absolutely nothing to do with empathy.

For once I'll give you a link so that you educate yourself a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

But if you want to check something more secure and serious than wikipedia, please, be my guest.

As for arranged weddings, I m not sure you actually saw the face of the bride while being dressed by other women realizing the end of your precious freedom.

There are arranged weddings that thankfully turn into love.

Again, numbers. This is not the majority. Not close from it.

Getting used to a situation, coping is not being happy. And those arranged weddings are notorious for the huge number of affairs, more from men back then as it was, and still is seen as "natural", "Darwinian": Boys will be boys.

Women? She would have a whole different kind of treatment and different way to be seen. Whoe being the usual word.

And here is another post where you correct yourself.

Are up to the point of not agreeing with yourself? Or is it another correction to look like a defender of women? How pathetic.

You think something? Stick to it. So much for your freedom. welcome "my image my image, I cannot say that without hurting my image!"

The thing with relationships, and the fact that people break up is quite simple: You don't know in advance how it's going to turn. Love, friendship, nothing, hatred, violence? If people could make choices based on a future they do not know (time travel is still not existing liast time I checked) a thing about, we would live in a peaceful, war-free world.

Your statments about what should and shouldn't be are the same as a 10 year-old could give. Someone who has no experience in life, which is not something you seem to lack.

Fighting back when being attacked is proven to be the best way to make the situation even more tragic. Especially in those situations. One shot to fight back, then you not only face a dangerous aggressor, but an angered dangerous aggressor.Anger is not the best councelor, but helps the aggressor to let go of his/her inhibitions.

I very seldom read such poor comments, comments' corrections, and my god! Not knowing the definition of the word empathy speaks quite for itself: You don't have empathy, that's the reason why. Simple.

Freedom over 8 years ago

WARNING: Careful about voicing these opinions in public spaces--- they will ruin your reputation if done in-artfully.


" Have the guts to defend what you believe in. You are sure or you are not. Throwing numbers out of nowhere is the weapon of the weak, unable to indeed, handle an discussion, using those numbers as decoys. "

Policemen and lawyers tend to think that between 20 and 80 percent of rape accusations are either false or seriously flawed. This is because an easy (but dishonest) way for women to make money is have sex, call it rape and collect sympathy and/or money. As George Will said in his campus rape column, "when [the authorities] make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate."


" Talking about Islam. The Qoran specifies tht if the husband or the wife (or both) is unhappy, then they should end the marriage rather than live unhappy. "

Islam, by the way, has interesting things to say about rape accusations. Wikipedia tells us "in some schools of Islamic law, a pregnant woman accused of [extramarital sex] who denies sex was consensual must prove she was raped with four eyewitnesses testifying before the court [....] Pressing [these] charges without required eyewitnesses is considered slander." Islamic law assumes rape accusations are very dubious.


" If you are unable to read a short text and see a statement where what is written is full of irony and sarcasm from A to Z, and agreeing with that, even more, it seems like your "Fairly true" comes from what you see as personal experience. "

Girls were falling over to sleep with Tiger Woods. Rock stars have tons of groupies, and it's an open secret that lots of sex is involved there. (fame)

Check out http://tagthesponsor.com/ for visual evidence of women happily prostituting themselves to rich oil tycoons in exchange for lewd sexual acts. (wealth)

Personally, I prefer girls who seek things other than fame and wealth, and I happen to think fame is a curse. But girls are more free than ever to express their sexual preferences.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

"WARNING: Careful about voicing these opinions in public spaces--- they will ruin your reputation if done in-artfully."

Writing your thoughts?

As I specified earlier, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information as it is made for internet users, by internet users.

"Policemen and lawyers tend to think that between 20 and 80 percent of rape accusations are either false or seriously flawed. This is because an easy (but dishonest) way for women to make money is have sex, call it rape and collect sympathy and/or money."

It is a fair assumption to say that you see women as attention whres or whres, plain and simple.

And this sentence just ruined your "Clarification" post. Clearly nothing close to someone who respects women nor defend them. Despise them? It looks like it, very much.

I am at peace with my opinions, and sharing them in public. I mean: Actual smart people who live in this day and age, and live by the rules, the Law.

Your rape exemple and Islam is sad, and not accurate. If I used the word Qoran, it is because just like any religion based on a sacred book, there is what is written and how to read what is written. It applies to a lot of different kind of books: A matter of point of view.

As for Tiger Woods, he was and still is treated for his sex addiction. He is the one running after women, and the more women you "hit on" (gross phrasing, but this is what he did and got caught red handed) the bigger the odds of finding women agreeing to sleep with you.

Tiger Woods is the best golf player in history. And has physical traits that makes him not exactly ugly.

Rockstars do have groupies, which are usually the same ones following them from city to city and all over the world. Music can make someone find peace or make that someone cry. Music has a well-known strong impact on feelings, changing them, "moving" them.

If you see yourself as someone as good in his field as Tiger Wood is (was; he is closer to the end of his career than its beginning), or like a rockstar because you were called one by a newspaper, then two, which is called "How to catch the potential buyer's attention", It will surprise nobody. Your egomania is news to no one.

Happiy and prostituting side by side. It shows again how ignorant you are about people who sell their bodies.

At some point, such ignorance is irritating Mr.Lewin.

Freedom over 8 years ago


" As I specified earlier, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information as it is made for internet users, by internet users. "

In 1982, a young girl Jehan Mina was made pregnant. She claimed it was rape, but did not have the four required witnesses and thus was put in jail for adultery. Her child was born in prison. In 1985, same thing happened to Safia Bibi, a domestic servant who claimed to have been repeatedly raped by her landlord and son. There are numerous similar reports, and they are simply applications of a variant of Sharia law, codified e.g. in Pakistan's 1977 Ordinance on Zina-bil-jabr (extramarital sex by force), which states that either (a) a confession, or (b) four witnesses are needed to prove that extramarital sex is rape. If not proven rape, the women is punished for having extramarital sex.

Notice some liberal, progressive women are converting to Islam. Perhaps a system where rape accusations are assumed false works better for them.

In the US on the other hand, a man is guilty until proven innocent of rape, as a police officer helpfully told an auditorium of students in my high school. Due process, which is the most important innovation of the Enlightenment, does not exist for rape cases. It is common knowledge among police officers who hear rape accusations, lawyers who investigate them and hospital workers who encounter them that they are often implausible. Many/most rape accusations are false.

As member of the public, we can sample from publicized rape accusations, many/most of which turn out false. Most recently, I remember national news outlets (MSNBC, NYTimes, etc.) put their spotlight on the UVA gang rape, where a woman said she was gang raped by several members of a UVA fraternity. UVA shut down all fraternities for months after the news story, and later enacted draconian anti-rape rules in response.

Turns out it was all a hoax. The female accuser had provided her friends a fake name, fake photo and fake e-mail address for the man who had taken her out on a date and started the gang rape. She had lied about the circumstances of the gang rape (e.g. she said it was at a party; but there was no party at that date). There were even texts from a fake phone number from the 'rapist' which seemed written in a way to make the accuser's crush jealous.

After it was found to be a hoax NYTimes irresponsibly stopped talking about the story, showing NYTimes is a radical feminist propaganda outlet.

Freedom over 8 years ago


" It is a fair assumption to say that you see women as attention whres or whres, plain and simple. "

Some women are whores, some are not. I have provided evidence of American females happily behaving as sluts, and if you want more there's ample evidence in media (e.g. the TV show Girls). In most of the world, when people sin, they call it a sin and feel bad about it. In the US, they call it a lifestyle and are proud of it. The result of sinning is broken families, abortion (infanticide basically), fertility treatments, and so on.


" And this sentence just ruined your "Clarification" post. Clearly nothing close to someone who respects women nor defend them. Despise them? It looks like it, very much. "

When it comes to women, I'm all heart! If I do hate some women, remember I'm an equal opportunity hater-- I hate men more than women. Encouraging women not to consent relationships they will regret, and being straightforward and honest about the sinfulness of everyday people, helps women.

Freedom over 8 years ago

Typo in 60:

"extramarital rape" not "adultery"

Anonymous over 8 years ago

"Notice some liberal, progressive women are converting to Islam. Perhaps a system where rape accusations are assumed false works better for them. "

My my my. I wonder who was claiming that: quote:"My current thinking is that most (perhaps ninety percent) of rape accusations are false, but I am not sure of this matter." ?? Are you not American Lewin? I wouldn't want to be a woman and in the same room as you.

You go directly to Pakistan, where what's happening in the name of Islam(learn to make the difference between genuine and twisted, it's never too late) has been condemned by the UN and almost all countries, including muslim coutries. The Sharia my poor Lewin, was not codified anywhere else but in the Qoran, in which a tremendous majority of muslim see "if one steals, cut that person's left hand" as what it is:A figurative way to "speak". Images. Not actually cutting the person's hand. Are you that eager to be right even when you are obviously not to go as far as using exemples-again.Not capable of argumenting without google-based on a sharia that is not one to prove your point.

And no, again, in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty.

At least know you basic rights like most Americans do.

quote:" Most recently, I remember national news outlets (MSNBC, NYTimes, etc.) put their spotlight on the UVA gang rape"

I call it "how to take place with words only to make absolutely no point, well one, and that is you clearly despising the NY Times. What ther purpose is there to use an exemple only to conclude it was a hoax made by the NYTimes and that of course, the NY Times is also part of the big feminists conspiracy, a tool for feminist propaganda.

Again, not capable of having your own argumentation without using tv or newspapers..

quote:" I have provided evidence of American females happily behaving as sluts, and if you want more there's ample evidence in media (e.g. the TV show Girls)".

Walter, thank you for brining that up! The big flaw in your provided evidence is that the exemple you take is as you say, a TV show aka a show.

Do I also need to give you a link to the definition of a TV show?

quote:"The result of sinning is broken families, abortion (infanticide basically), fertility treatments, and so on."

After describing what are your taste when it comes to "girls", please don't go backwards to play the extremely religious we all are sinners card. That card makes you lose even more credibility after all you wrote about women.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


quote:" When it comes to women, I'm all heart! If I do hate some women, remember I'm an equal opportunity hater-- I hate men more than women".

Aouch. That one is so so sad and hilarious at the same time. Your writing int the posts above made it very clear that you are not all heart with women, those creatures who 90 of the time lie about being raped, misbehave to attract men into traps then ask for money or/and attention, and so on and so forth. Quoting you is not necessary here, people on the net will simply scroll up, and see that your scream of sympathy and love to women is at best a mascarade , and a very pathetic one, one that nobody but you can believe in.

No, ut really wasn't your best choice to play the "I am a very religious man without saying it, but by using what I think a very religious man would useto make his point about quote:"sluts" and other kind of women.".

But please, I would love to hear, and no use of google to do it for you as anyone can claim anything then ask google how to get you out of that mess, what is the link, scientifically between sinning and fertility treatments please.

I think a lot of scientists would love to see that explanation.

Yo should have gone to bed before writing those posts.

They hardly make sense, and reading them is boring as hell, hilarious because of the exemples you base your point on, and of very very bad quality.

Saying something and its opposite (just in case: it's a figure of speech) to lines later is so far your lamest argumentation.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

"Saying something and its opposite (just in case: it's a figure of speech) to lines later is so far your lamest argumentation."

I missed the w key: too lines later.

Anonymous over 8 years ago

Why can't you people simply get this in your thick skulls. There was consent involved in this case. There was no damn gun put to her damn head to start sending nude pics. She was obviously enjoying it. She was not a minor who could be lured in doing these things.

that sick woman has a history of paranoia and she is just using all this to get cheap publicity.

Now if some one asks me to exchange nude pics with some one would I do it? She pretends as if she was threatened on gun point to do all that. She was obviously involved and now she is blaming if she was trapped. For heaven sake is it so easy to get "trapped" when you are sitting miles away on some other computer. Sick woman.

Freedom over 8 years ago

Thanks 67. The totalitarian anti-harassment policies advocated by promiscuous, low class women make it far less appealing to accept their advances. Thusly feminism is largely self-destructive.

65, 66. Apologies I don't have time to answer your objections.

This (poorly-written) article clarifies some of the core issues: (Note that I do not agree with the article's conclusions.)

"Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe" by Laura Kipnis


Fact A) Professors and students love dating each other.

Quote: "Of course, the residues of the wild old days are everywhere. On my campus, several such "mixed" couples leap to mind, including female professors wed to former students. Not to mention the legions whove dated a graduate student or two in their day-- plenty of female professors in that category, too-- in fact, I'm one of them. Don't ask for details. It's one of those things it now behooves one to be reticent about, lest you be branded a predator."

Fact B) Hooking up with a professor is usually not traumatizing.

Quote: "It's not that [as a student hooking up with professors] I didn't make my share of mistakes, or act stupidly and inchoately, but it was embarrassing, not traumatizing."

Fact C) Sexual relationships are not always pretty.

Quote: " Other people's sexuality is often just weird and creepy. "

Fact D) The media narrative is that students lack power (which is clearly wrong).

Quote: " Yet our workplaces themselves are promulgating the crudest version of top-down power imaginable, recasting the professoriate as Snidely Whiplashes twirling our mustaches and students as helpless damsels tied to railroad tracks. Students lack volition and independent desires of their own; professors are would-be coercers with dastardly plans to corrupt the innocent. "

Fact E) College administrators basically believe women cannot consent.

Quote: " A certain brand of radical feminist--the late Andrea Dworkin, for one--held that women's consent was meaningless in the context of patriarchy, but Dworkin was generally considered an extremist. She'd have been gratified to hear that her convictions had finally gone mainstream "

This yearlong consensual sexual relationship was branded harassment because the accuser felt bad after the breakup. The accuser should understand that love isn't supposed to be perfect; and that it is natural for breakups to feel bad.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


Ok, so, you're either Anonymous, Mr.Freedom or Walter Lewin: Mak a choice, you seem like you disagree with yourself which, in a way, says a lot about you.

I was wondering, since we all are about sending "sex pictures" to quote you, well, one of your dopplegngers (gosh, you do have a lot of them) that she sent, since she talked about her material t IHE, and also, both MIT and IHE said that she showed them the material, graphic, well it came to my mind: What about the "sex pictures" Me.Lewin might very well have sent? Huh?

Gun pointed at his head? knife under his throat? Dud, he was miles away from her and the other women right? So, he has such a great opinion of himself, Walter Lewin no longer Emeritus no longer Professor because first was ripped off second he's retired, that he could go as far as sending "sex pictures" of himself and actually believe that any, I mean come on, just being down to earth here: Just the idea of that makes me think of my grand parents and I wanna puke. So if any of you actually think (I mean, maybe one of your Doppleganger Walter Lewin has the ability to see the simple reality) that seeing an lof hag or an old geezer's nude pics is sexually appealing, wow. I' stringly advise you to talk to someone about that, because something went wrong somewhere.

Oh I just saw the inference made about those women's feelings. So Walter Lewin is sooooo appealing all those women including Harbi felt in love with him and couldn't accept the break up?

Do you even realize the absurd of that statement? Hum, since there is nothing in any papers about love, breakups, I really really ask you to stop using..just use Walter Lewin you're fooling nobody. Just so you know it. People know it's you, I wanna make that clear.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


That being said, the feminists I know are nt all "ley's cut their d.. !!! To rule the world! !" ; no , they are aboit equal rights actuaaly being applied. Incomes, treatments, career advancement, a lot of points that I knew about, some of them, amuch ledd I have tp admit, and others I saw so mainstream we simply look at those situations, points, without seeing them.

I won't even bother starting to talk about that with you, Mr.Lewin , as it s clear that your opinion about women, not to talk about feminists is not going to budge. You are obvously right. I mean, Walter Lewin is always right. How can someone of that caliber be wrong? Impossible.

The supetstar cannot be wrong D'uh!

(Irony above and here, just in case)

Thaaank you for tge life lesdob about love and breakups and how breakups can be hard to handle, making people feel sad.

It goes without saying that your statement enlightened billions of human beings

Again, you still cannot argue without quoting articles you even disagree with...

I thought lame was a fitting word for your arguments. I was wrong.

Complete lack of the ability to think all by yourself without quoting anything is more appropriateAnd lamest in a way.

I wonder who you qupted back then during your "famous" lectures now..

Anonymous over 8 years ago

#69 or sick herbi.

I am not walter lewin. In-fact I am from India.

You said,"What about the "sex pictures" Me.Lewin might very well have sent? Huh?

Gun pointed at his head? knife under his throat?"

So what is your damn point? He is not the one who complained of sexual harassment. It was you sickko. So shut the hell up and leave him alone now. You are the one who trapped him. You are the one who used his name for cheap publicity. Why would you exchange nude pics in the first place? It was your own choice.

You said, "So Walter Lewin is sooooo appealing all those women including Harbi felt in love with him and couldn't accept the break up?"

so you mean to say that paranoid bimbo herbi is so damn charming? That Lewin fell in love with him. She obviously lured him, or you lured him. No one I again repeat no one gets trapped sitting miles away if they themselves are not looking to be trapped. She was not trapped, she is the one who used Lewin, she knew his age, his status. That paranoid woman thought by coming forward she will get headlines in news. Mr Lewin is still loved, no one is perfect and sicko like herbi will get no far in their life.

I just want to ask one question from her advocates, what the hell was wrong with her that she was involved in self-hurting behavior? Why MIT did not consider her paranoid history of behavior. That mentally unstable woman who herself got chatty with lewin or may be fell in love with him, later could not handle rejection. If he was such an old hang why the hell was she talking to him in the first place?

Being a woman I am clear, she used him for cheap publicity. I am sorry I cannot fathom that how the hell was she trapped.

Anonymous over 8 years ago


The fact that you call him Mr. Lewin blows your "I m from India" lame cover. Again, you can do better. And it's insulting to Indian people to assume they don't speak nor write proper English. But oh well, they are not Lewin , so apart from Lewin nobody can write proper and clean English.

You seem to know what Harbi has in mind since the beginning.

How can she be a nutcase and at the same time manage to trap Lewin knowing his age, let alone his status What's his status? Teacher? What is that? Prime Minister or something like that.

No, a professor who used to teach at MIT, where btw he didn't graduate.

DIggression about the self-mutilation (yeah, it's in movies, tv shows, at least use the right terminology): It's a sadly very common way to punish one self for sometimes reasons the person who does that is not aware of. Not gonna try to explain it here: google self-mutilation. Chances are, you may find that some people around you are sefl mutilating: by common I really mean it, sadly.

"In-fact I m from India".

typical Lewin.

So Lewin that people who read comments without reading the username saw Lewin's post immediately.

So, after all the people said to Harbi, or me, I assume both her and I can take some sicko here and there.

Read me again, ou'll see a lot more conditional where you use blunt and no backed up statements.

Still lame, can do much better. And pathetic and insulting to any Indian, the way you think they talk and write Mr.Lewin. How petty and disgusting of you. Well another disgusting point.

And from what I saw, "he"'s not exactly being loved the way he was. faaaaaaar from it, just face the truth. It's about simple math, numbers, views, comments here or some places else.

And a smart man like you being trapped bu a "sicko", aint that a way too far fetched excuse for you to think people would actually believe you?

Wake up Alice, Wonderland is long gone.

Em about 8 years ago

So I thought nobody was answering on purpose but no, it's due to the no more anonymous thing that Lewin didn't even bother to answer.

How courageous of him to hide once anonymity is no longer here to allow him to say unbelievable things he'd likely not say if he were not anonymous.

So low.

Have the courage to defend your convictions Mr.Lewin. And to defend your innocent self.

Not anonymously, sure, but, when someone is right, what use anonymity?

Em about 8 years ago


New article about Lewin!