Go to content, skip over navigation

Sections

More Pages

Go to content, skip over visible header bar
Home News Features Arts & Entertainment Sports OpinionAbout Contact Advertise

Note about Unsupported Devices:

You seem to be browsing on a screen size, browser, or device that this website cannot support. Some things might look and act a little weird.

I am Brett Kavanaugh

October 11, 2018

This piece represents the opinion of the author.

Some rights are above popular opinion. We could hold a vote right now and a majority could decide to put me to death, but that wouldn’t be justice. I have a right to life not only as a student, not only as an American, but as a human being. These rights were not created by the Constitution; they were written to be common knowledge. My constitutional right to an evidence-based trial instead of hysteria is a human right. The idea of strictly believing accusers is not an addition to human rights, it is a direct contradiction and a quiet repeal of the values of the American revolution.

The right to a fair trial does not exist to only benefit criminals, just like the right to a free press does not exist to only benefit the New York Times. The rights of the accused are our rights.

If we “believe women” more assaulters would be convicted. That much is for certain. Stacking the odds in favor of the accuser has cost us our assumed innocence, and the costs of this justice are seemingly ignored. Believing any allegation at face value means evidence doesn’t matter. Justice at all costs is not justice.

I have been told that since 98 percent of allegations are true that under Title IX innocence has to be proven rather than guilt. It takes courage to stand in front of the Senate against the man who may have assaulted you. We do owe her a chance to speak her mind. However, to blindly accept testimony without regard for evidence is questionable. No one is above scrutiny, not even potential sexual assault victims—especially in the highest court of our country. Nobody’s freedom should depend on their popularity—not even Kavanaugh’s.

Here at Bowdoin, Title IX is routinely criticized because not every accusation of sexual assault receives punishment. That is not its purpose. Our students have a right to fair trial with clear charges and evidence. We are entitled to an investigation by the Judicial Board. Title IX does not exist to serve punishment at the cost of justice. I did not commit an assault, but I don’t have an alibi for where I was last weekend. Like Judge Kavanaugh, I don’t have an alibi for every weekend in high school. In 30 years, I will not have an alibi. His rights are my rights. I am Kavanaugh.

Like any Bowdoin student, I am skeptical of commonly accepted ideas and am open-minded. I openly question the logic behind our current immigration policy. I still believe America should have the most generous immigration policy in the world, but there should be some kind of limit. However, my views are generalized into being “anti-immigrant” in all cases. Calling you a communist is as unfair as calling me a xenophobe. Yet students are quick to paint conservatives as close-minded. I, Theo de Quillacq, with the most French last name, born in London, born without American citizenship, am not a xenophobe.

We aren’t playing for teams, we are creating marginal changes. We just value trade-offs differently. I value the environment, but I would not go to the extreme of sterilizing the human race to protect it from pollution. No one would. It is unfair to generalize someone’s views as “anti-environmental” because of particular stances.

It is childish to generalize this issue as men versus women, or corporations versus the environment. Kavanaugh considers the specifics, but the most common argument I hear is that he has chosen the wrong side, as if he is against the environment or women in all cases. It has only been a few weeks since student protestors gathered on the quad and petitioned in Portland because of Kavanaugh’s stances on the environment. Yes, I agree that the environment should be protected, but not in all cases. Justice at all costs is not justice.

No allegation or precedent is above scrutiny. It is possible Dr. Ford did not tell the truth. It is possible that Roe v. Wade was an unjust decision. Jane Roe was never raped. Jane Roe admitted she lied about being raped on live TV. She later changed her mind on abortion, and called her role in the case “the far greater sin.” Maybe we shouldn’t have taken her word for it. I don’t have the answers, but the conversation is not over.

It is ironic that a place dedicated to truth is hostile to skepticism.

Theo de Quillacq is a member of the class of 2021.

Comments

Before submitting a comment, please review our comment policy. Some key points from the policy:

  • No hate speech, profanity, disrespectful or threatening comments.
  • No personal attacks on reporters.
  • Comments must be under 200 words.
  • You are strongly encouraged to use a real name or identifier ("Class of '92").
  • Any comments made with an email address that does not belong to you will get removed.

52 comments:

  1. Bowdoin '19 says:

    A clunky and disjointed representation of the view of – I am sure – a small but dedicated group of people on Bowdoin’s campus. The author would have done well to bring in the most common arguments on the subject; civil v. criminal burdens of proof or the difference between a trial and a job interview. Instead, he attacked the straw horse that is ‘guilty until proven innocent,’ taking the most extreme views of those who disagree with him (even as he decried those who apparently do the same to him) and claiming a loss of rights. There are certainly thoughtful arguments on both sides of the aisle, but this is not one of them.

  2. Class of '15 says:

    Bias is inevitable, this is a given. What this means is that sound and nuanced arguments cannot be made without acknowledgement of one’s bias. One need only look to (1) the analogy by the author between being put to death (death, by the way, being one thing Dr. Blasey-Ford was scared would happen to her on the night in question) and losing a job, and (2) the syntactically unnecessary, and thus obviously mocking, quotations marks around the phrase “believe women” Theo, your bias is showing. How many women, how many accusers, would it take for you to agree that this man is unqualified to hold the HIGHEST LEGAL OFFICE in the country?

  3. Bowdoin ‘21 says:

    Thanks for having the courage to write this. Hopefully the nation can heal.

  4. Seriously? says:

    Wow, this take is shockingly bad

  5. Philip Kiefer '18 says:

    I know you at the Orient are in a tough spot in terms of deciding what op-eds to publish/not publish, but this feels pretty similar to the USA Today Trump op-ed: Poorly argued and factually questionable (granted, fewer outright lies than in Trump’s piece), and not worthy of journalistic consideration. This is some graceless writing and graceless thinking.

    As always, there’s going to be a backlash to these criticisms from conservative alumni and Jean Yarborough’s bully pulpit, and maybe it’ll even be endorsed by Rose. (“No one listens to conservatives anymore! What happened to free and open debate!”) But seriously, if that camp is interested in carving out a bigger place for intellectual conservatism at Bowdoin, go to the Writing Center, and figure out how to string together some worthwhile prose.

  6. Class of ‘19 says:

    Theo, I am troubled on your behalf that you feel you must approach what you champion as justified skepticism with the degree of defensiveness, hostility, and reductive reasoning that you do. It is unfortunate that you feel unheard or demonized, but this style of discourse does not promote “conversation,” merely another string of hostilities that do little to alleviate the pain I imagine is on both sides of this contentious issue.

  7. Bowdoin '17 says:

    Hi Theo – just wanted to let you know that calling a woman’s experiences or words “hysterical” builds on a centuries-old tradition of taking women’s power by calling them crazy. The condition of “hysteria” was often diagnosed in Victorian women, for example, based on symptoms like expressing opinions or rejecting a man’s advances and used to institutionalize them or discredit them in society. I’m sure you are unaware of the formal history of the word, but this is just one of many, many places in this piece in which you reveal your ignorance of the history of the suppression of women’s voices. Honestly, you do sound a lot like Brett Kavanaugh, so I’m glad you’ve self-identified correctly there.

  8. Class of ‘21 says:

    It’s 2018. You have so many tools at your disposable to find actual facts, statistics, and personal accounts to back up your point of view and make a case for your self. You, however, did not do this. Instead you chose to victimize yourself and make obscene analogies that did nothing for your point and rather just confused the reader. Instead of contributing to the problem and rape culture, you should have used your privilege to make a real change, not to stir up controversies for the sake of causing a controversy. There are better ways to make your point, legitimate concerns you may have. Raise those next time.

  9. UChicago 19 says:

    Testimony is evidence. Also, if you care so much for a fair trial, why not allow the FBI more than a few days to conduct an an exhaustive investigation? This is silly. The issue is not that Democrats have disregarding the presumption of innocence, but that the processes of fact-gathering and subsequent deliberation were disregarded by the Republican majority. The nomination was ramrodded through Congress by the Republican majority. A fair trial? That’s all Dr. Blasey Ford wanted. You are the one obstructing, not those who find credible testimony credible.

  10. Bowdoin parent says:

    The only part of this essay with which I can agree is its title. Yes, Mr. de Quillacq, you ARE Brett Kavanaugh — in your arrogance, your disingenuousness, and most notably in your aggrieved portrayal of yourself as an imagined victim. How, you seem to be asking, could you possibly be expected to provide an alibi when, inevitably, you are falsely accused of some type of misbehavior? This is one of the many fears that Donald Trump is so adept at activating among his followers, and it is a fraudulent argument, wholly constructed on a foundation of fear and mistrust. But it finds a captive audience in the Brett Kavanaughs of the world, granting them tacit permission to cling ever more desperately to a toxic sense of entitlement. If you are indeed Brett Kavanaugh, Mr. de Quillacq, then hang on tight. Change is coming.

  11. The Dude abides says:

    I agree with you; it is quite clear that you do not have the answers.

  12. Helen Galvin Ross says:

    There’s too much misogyny and bad writing in this column to respond to it piece-by-piece. There will be other, more extensive responses. I look forward to reading them, and to you, Theo, as a result, taking a long look at your own malice towards survivors.

    I’d like to briefly say that Jane Roe told the police she had been raped because that was the only context in which she would have been allowed to obtain an abortion. It’s ironic, isn’t it? That only once a woman has had her bodily autonomy utterly violated can she claim any control over her reproductive decisions? Jane Roe was, actually, abused and raped repeatedly as a child and teenager, a claim which she has never recanted and which her own family members refused to believe. Count yourself as among that proud company. This is a hideous article.

  13. Class of ‘19 says:

    An incredibly disjointed, rambling piece which fails to argue a clear point. If I were a conservative on this campus I would be upset that this is the representation of my views. Within your manifesto you did not focus on sexual assault, you decided to jump to immigrantion? And Roe v. Wade? This makes this whole piece seem like a repudiation of all things done in order to aid women in American society, which is deeply concerning. I can’t address each point directly, there isn’t enough space. But I will say, I am disappointed in where your anger seems to lie. Why are you not advocating for the children held in immigration facilities without their right to a “fair trial” you so ardently defend? Why are you not upset that rape committed by men to women is a massive issue that is a direct infringement on a woman’s body and rights? Why bring up Roe v. Wade? It seems that you jump to defend men, and do not use the same logic when it comes to defending women or minorities, or children for that matter. This piece proves the cherry picking nature of conservatives today and why they will never progress if the only people worth defending are white males.

  14. Bowdoin '15 says:

    I was embarrassed and sad to read this in the orient this morning. There are arguments to be made for Kavanaugh, but, as noted previously, this is not a well-written one. It’s not just the lack of an alibi, but it is the presence of evidence. And “believe survivors” in quotations is unnecessary and cruel. I expect more compassion from a Bowdoin student, even if they disagree.

  15. Class of '21 says:

    I can’t wait for someone to completely tear down this piece line by line next week. Saying you’re not xenophobic because you hold citizenship in three white majority countries who have histories of colonialism and racism—and have displayed preference for white immigrants—is irrelevant. Bringing up immigration, the environment, and briefly, the death penalty(?), in a weak attempt to divert our attention from the fact that you are clearly trying to stir the pot is sad. Your writing is hard to follow and your lack of a clear argument is confusing. If I were to be a conservative, I would be extremely irritated at your portrayal of what conservatism stands for. You attack women and disregard their stories as valid with the usage of quotations. You have done yourself a disservice by not having a single person who you consider a friend to read this beforehand and have you rethink the title at the very least. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when I met you over fall break, but you have disappointed me immensely with this lack of thought and inability to coherently produce an argument.

    • PB Alum says:

      I think you should take the tearing down on yourself next week and write a full rebuttal – this comment is amazing and was a joy to read after the infuriating swamp that is this article!!

    • Safiya Osei '21 says:

      Nicole Tjin A Djie ’21 made me think about posting my comment without my name and I honestly wasn’t doing it to conceal my identity, I just didn’t see why it would be necessary. But I think I wrote something good here, so I’m just going to go ahead and claim what I said because I stand by it and have no regrets.

  16. Arnold Horshack says:

    The comments on here are not surprising given the single-minded lefty echo chamber at Bowdoin. Thank God there are still students who have the guts to speak their minds. Bravo, Theo!

    • Philip Kiefer '18 says:

      They’re also not surprising given how poorly argued this article was. If you’re so concerned about the echo chamber, do a better job representing your point of view. It doesn’t take guts to argue for a status quo that privileges you, your body, and your voice at the expense of others.

  17. class of 2021 says:

    a poor attempt to mask your conservatism and obvious white privilege by using illogical and baseless arguments.

  18. Bowdoin '20 says:

    Ah, yes. The “common knowledge” rights the founding fathers bestowed upon me as a Latina woman. I forgot my status, rights, and the validity of my thoughts, opinions, and testimony have always been equal to that of a white man. Thank you for the reminder.

  19. Class of 14 says:

    Orient, if you’re going to publish “controversial” or “diverse” opinions, no matter how harmful or offensive (because free speech isn’t the same as a right to a free platform!), at least do everyone on all sides of an issue the courtesy of publishing material that’s cogent and has some sort of point, even if that point is disgusting.

  20. Bowdoin '22 says:

    Dear author,

    Not only is your writing hard to follow and logic is flawed, your morality, or lack thereof, is showing. Women have been at a disadvantage since the earliest ages of human history and they’re still at major disadvantages today, whether it be through job discrimination, the wage gap, and in accusations of sexual assault. There is a plethora of evidence that you could have used to back up your argument, yet you chose to go on rants that come across not only as misogynistic, xenophobic, but just outright wrong. While dialogue and discussion should be encouraged at Bowdoin, one cannot possibly argue against someone whose argument relies on extremist views which go against basic morality. Women should be heard, and they should be believed. It takes courage and effort to stand in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee where 11 white Republican men try to trivialize your assault and derail your testimony. It takes courage and effort to come forward and be exposed to constant death threats and for a complete change to be made to your life. That is why we believe Dr. Ford. On xenophobia, you come from a privilege background being from a European country where the majority do not seek to immigrate to the United States because you are part of the global north. Most immigrants coming to the United States are not coming from first world countries where they enjoy endless opportunities. Most immigrants come from areas where their lives are endangered due to political instability, economic inequalities, and/or natural disasters. There are better ways to go about your arguments, this is ain’t it.

  21. Moderate '19 says:

    Regardless of how one might feel about Dr. Ford, she is entitled to basic respect, and maintained composure when no one else seemed successful in doing so. Do you have to agree the majority of your peers on Kavanaugh? No. Is this a directionless attack on her character. Yes, and I think you could have done better.

  22. Bowdoin '20 says:

    When I was 11 or 12, I received a cross.

    I haven’t worn it in years,
    But I still keep it,
    A reminder of the faith that clings to my family like dust.

    In Christianity, nothing is more important than forgiveness.
    It’s supposed to be like a flood,
    that washes everything else away.

    And I try to forgive him.
    I try.

    It lasted seconds, maybe less,
    but I can still feel his hand squeezing my side.
    I can still hear him laughing at me.

    I was 14 or 15, I don’t know.
    The date has long since washed away,
    and I know he’s forgotten me.

    But I can’t forget,
    and I don’t know how to forgive.

  23. Deirdre A Oakley says:

    Class of ’82
    I think placing ‘believe women’ in quotes without providing context deflates your entire argument. Your implied mocking of the phrase comes across as angry, bitter, defensive, and misogynistic. As for your immigration statement. I’m the offspring of an Irish immigrant who grew up in Liverpool. And I have a very Irish name (in the Irish language). But I’d hardly equate my father’s experience, nor mine with what’s going on now at our Southern Border with infants and children being separated from their parents. If you look at the history of U.S. immigration policies you’d know that there are immigrant groups who are favored and those who are not.

  24. Mike Healey '04 says:

    It is poorly written. It is rambling. It is a bad attempt at representing a coherent conservative viewpoint. And I bet the Bowdoin Orient Editorial Staff jumped at the opportunity to put that on display.

    From a one-time progressive turned Classical Liberal harboring an equal amount of disdain for the “left” and the “right.”

  25. Bowdoin Woman, '16 says:

    I don’t agree with all the points in this article, but I commend Theo for articulating an unpopular opinion in a liberal echo chamber. Whether or not he’s right, he’s taking a risk with eloquence and civility, and that’s the whole point of democracy and of a liberal arts education. Please, please: if you disagree with him, write an eloquent rebuttal (and go for the jugular – that’s fine!). But don’t shun or bully him – you’re better than that. Women: we deserve to be heard. But we’re loud and strong enough to not need to quiet our men in order for that to happen.

    • Bowdoin Woman '20 says:

      I agree that this was brave but is this truly your standard for eloquence and civility? Also, are women really being heard in the US right now? I appreciate that this was a brave post but I disagree with some of your assumptions

    • Moderate Bowd Woman ‘19 says:

      Could not agree with this comment more. I don’t agree with the entirety of this article, but the responses and behavior demonstrated by Bowdoin students is absolutely repulsive. Thank you Theo, for voicing an opinion.

    • class of 92 says:

      The author does not provide the needed context nor history. In fact his argument is polemic. No one on this thread has bullied him. And comments are limited to 200 words.

    • Arnold Horshack says:

      Well put! People are pretty quick to slam Theo for his his “white privilege” and “misogyny”… or that he’s not a real immigrant because he’s not Latin. My guess is that none of these people know the first thing about him. I don’t think Theo is saying that women shouldn’t be heard or believed. He’s saying that not every accuser in every instance (male or female) should be believed at face value if there is a lack of evidence. Most accusers are indeed truthful – they have no incentive to be otherwise. But, we don’t have to go back far in history to see instances where the media whipped the public into a frenzy about alleged college rapes only to find that the claims from certain individuals at the University of Virginia, Delta College, and Duke University turned out to be baseless. Why would these individuals have lied about a horrid assault? Who the heck knows? But the sheer fact that some people do, for some odd reason, means that we must begin with a standard of presumption of innocence, even if that doesn’t provide the speedy remedy people want for accusers once they bravely come forward.

  26. Bowdoin '20 says:

    “Like Judge Kavanaugh, I don’t have an alibi for every weekend in high school. In 30 years, I will not have an alibi. His rights are my rights. I am Kavanaugh.”

    Judge Kavanaugh was never on trial…. this whole op-ed acts like he was. The bigger question is why do you feel comfortable calling women hysterical and comparing yourself to a likely rapist. Why do you say that Dr. Ford may not having been telling the truth, without noting that Kavanaugh could have been lying as well. Your article is laden with sexism and it’s clear that even if you are not a rapist, you have no problem associating yourself with rapist…. that is a problem. Take a hard look in the mirror, Theo

  27. John Bellow says:

    If he was entitled to s trial, there should have been one instead of a circus lead by clowns

  28. Bowdoin alum '06 says:

    Um, wow, there are so many flaws with this piece, I don’t know where to start. A glaring flaw is that the author, as well as a majority of Republican U.S. senators, conveniently ignored all of the evidence that Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh’s other credible accusers provided. Testimony is “evidence.” The FBI didn’t even interview Dr. Ford or Kavanaugh, and it’s, clear, now, that Trump significantly limited the scope of the “investigation,” so the truth about Kavanaugh could not come out, at least not in an official capacity. Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick all offered evidence, including witness lists, that could have corroborated their accusations about Kavanaugh, but the FBI/Senate Republicans did not follow up on ANY OF IT. Kavanaugh’s own Yale classmates wrote in a Washington Post article that they believed he lied under oath about his drinking and whether he had ever “blacked out.” This is important because it means that if Kavanaugh had ever had memory lapses due to alcohol, he could have sexually assaulted Dr. Ford but has no memory of it. It would also support Dr. Ford’s account that Kavanaugh was really drunk when he assaulted her. Moreover, this author shows a lack of compassion towards and understanding of the experiences of countless women in this country (and at Bowdoin, I assume). Why on God’s green earth would Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh’s other accusers come forward and subject themselves to national condemnation and shame–and the President of the United States publicly mocking them–if they weren’t telling the truth???

  29. Amber says:

    I applaud you, Theo, for your thoughtful editorial. Your bravery is encouraging as you will be assailed in this current climate and especially at a liberal (as most are now) college. Stay real and level headed!

  30. UNC‘20, Common Sense’98 says:

    An empty piece attacking a straw man. The author did well to twist words and selectively conflate criminal trial and social condemnation in order to make snappily misogynistic soundbites.

    Brief overview of the many problems:
    -uncharitable view of opposing viewpoints effectively making a straw man
    -(selective?) misunderstanding between what is required for criminal proceedings vs social judgments
    -blithe ignorance of testimony as evidence (please just google it.)
    -context, especially in history and previous misogyny (carrying on the tradition, I suppose!)
    -overdramatization through false analogies (I hope they were for comedic effect; it’s about all they did)

    Thank you for a clear example of provocative and unproductive argument! I look forward to being similarly disappointed again soon.

  31. Bowdoin '20 says:

    This is an incoherent piece that is written to provoke. From quotations around “believe women,” to referring to asking that a Supreme Court justice be fully investigated when accused multiple times of sexual assault as “hysteria,” the language of this piece intentionally discounts the voices of women for a jumbled argument that goes no where. This perspective is dangerous. Sexual assault survivors deserve better than to open the Orient and hear their voices trivialized. I’m all for open and productive discussion, but this was an immature and ill-informed rant undeserving of this platform. My thoughts are with all victims today and all days.

  32. Frank Mueller '68 says:

    I am shocked that the Orient would publish such an article. I am all for discussion for both sides, but I see little merit in allowing such poorly thought opinions to be given a platform.

  33. Nicole Class of '18 says:

    I see great value in having my own world views challenged, which is why I have always advocated for the diversification of perspectives published in the Orient. However, I believe through publishing this article, you have made a mockery of this endeavor and of the opinions and people represented on both sides of the argument(s). The conversations that will come out of this article will not be constructive, they will not be thought provoking, nor will they help close the political polarization dividing the campus. As Bowdoin students, aspiring journalists, and truth-seekers- you have a responsibility to your readers and to your writers to provide quality content. Content that is first and foremost, well written and factual and hopefully multifaceted and able to stir conversation. You have chosen instead to be controversial for controversies sake.You have not only let down your readers, but also the author by failing to provide him with support and guidance to fully develop his arguments and ideas to create a more thoughtful piece, and to if need be, cut the piece if it is unable to reach that point. There is no way this should have ever been published and you should know better.

  34. Nisha '06 says:

    There are so many flaws with this piece, I don’t know where to start. A glaring flaw is that the author conveniently ignored all of the evidence that Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh’s other credible accusers provided. Testimony is “evidence.” The FBI didn’t even interview Dr. Ford or Kavanaugh, and it’s, clear, now, that Trump significantly limited the scope of the “investigation,” so the truth about Kavanaugh could not come out, at least not in an official capacity. Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick all offered evidence, including witness lists, that could have corroborated their accusations about Kavanaugh, but the FBI/Senate Republicans didn’t follow up on ANY OF IT. Kavanaugh’s own Yale classmates wrote in a WaPo article that they believed he lied under oath about his drinking and whether he had ever “blacked out.” This is important because it means that if Kavanaugh ever had memory lapses due to alcohol, he could have sexually assaulted Dr. Ford but forgot about it. It would also support Dr. Ford’s account that Kavanaugh was really drunk when he assaulted her. Moreover, the author shows a complete lack of empathy and understanding towards survivors and the reality of their experiences.

  35. Not an idiot says:

    I mean, it’s an unpopular opinion but I know I never have to line in fear of allegations. I’ve treated women with respect and never put myself in a situation where it might ever turn into a, “he said, she said” as was Kavanaugh’s case. By that, I mean, that’s the way his case was characterized even though a more detailed investigation might have changed that characterization. I AM NOT KAVANAUGH because I learned how to seek consent (thanks Bowdoin for taking time to explain what consent is and can look like). If we had more conversations about what consent is and understand that it’s a mutual responsibility amongst partners then you wouldn’t need to worry about living in fear of a false allegation. I understand that it’s easier and more convenient to live in ignorant bliss about that idea.

  36. Nicole Tjin A Djie ’21 says:

    Though I can not articulate a proper comment on this article, I do have one question for commenters who may see this. I never really thought much of this, but seeing an article where people actually commented but also did not put their names, I want to ask is that intentional? Do you see no need to put your name or do you intentionally avoid doing so?

    • Safiya Osei '21 says:

      When I commented, I was in such a hurry I just put my class year as a place holder, but I have no qualms about adding my name now. I don’t mind if people know what my stance is on this piece, I just wanted to make sure it was posted.

  37. DavidTreadwell '64 says:

    The author ignored two key facts re the confirmation hearing: 1. Kavanaugh did not exhibit the right temperament in his outburst to be a Supreme Court Justice; and 2. He lied on several matters in the hearing, some of them minor some of them not minor. But a lie is a lie and he was under oath.

  38. Seamus keenan says:

    Dang Bowdoin Orient. Please stand by your comment policy. This organization is just showing it’s bias by letting all these comments, many of which attack the author and not his ideas be posted. Really discouraging. Looks terrible. Figure it out.

  39. bowdoindad says:

    How disappointing that the Bowdoin student body reacts with such vitriol when confronted with a different point of view. Hang in there, Theo. The ad hominem attacks and incoherent arguments will taper off over time, I hope. You dared challenge the popular view. You will be treated as a religious heretic for it. I hope the bowdoin mob doesn’t drive you away.

    • Class of '22 says:

      Incoherent? I found the arguments presented in this comment section infinitely more eloquent and worthwhile than any portion of the article itself. The unpopularity of Theo’s opinion doesn’t make it worthy of admiration. Maybe the popular view is popular for a reason.

  40. Alum '07 says:

    Not to belabor the point but this is a poorly written piece, which is probably the result of Theo trying to mask how he really feels or what he really thinks. That’s a bit of a tragedy, because he should feel free to voice his whole opinion. These types of open discussion should take place inside classrooms. State your opinion and defend it, with thoughtful statements, not just emotion. Regarding Theo’s main point, Kavanaugh wasn’t on actual trial, he was in fact on trial in “the court of public opinion,” which is the basis for politics. So Title IX isn’t an issue. He was on a job interview, not on trial before a judge and jury. Elected officials are supposed to react to what their constituents (the jury of the court of public opinion) are telling them. Kavanaugh was losing the battle in the court of public opinion. That should have elicited a different response from the men and women elected to represent them, maybe resulting in a an actual judicial trial. At a minimum, the process should have been delayed for more earnest fact-finding.

  41. Alex Linhart '06 says:

    Theo – out of all the hysteria I generally see within the Orient – this piece was well reasoned, clear, and made a very strong argument. The Ad Hominem attacks on this page are disappointing. I hope you stay strong and don’t give into this mob.


Leave a Reply

Any comments that do not follow the policy will not be published.

0/200 words