Student: Notre Dame Expelled Me Because I’m Male

I haven't read the full link but just by going on the information in the OP, alone, it seems the university were not very sympathetic to this guy's mental state.

There's two sides to every story.

Original Quill wrote:There's two sides to every story.

Erm yes. What's yours?

Original Quill wrote:There's two sides to every story.

Well what should be considered here, is whether the girl was under some sort of threat here?
Clearly as no police were involved there was no case for any threat towards her.

Clearly the mental health of the patient was not taken into consideration and his threats of suicide were seen more a nuisance to the girl, than actually trying to help the man in question

Pretty much how I read it TBH.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's two sides to every story.

Erm yes. What's yours?

Are you talking about the post subject?  How can I possibly have a "story" about it? I wasn't there.

Each case is fact-driven. Depends upon the evidence. For example, perhaps he was a passive-aggressive, and was nagging her by threatening suicide. Juries are good at sorting out what is valid and what is phony.

That said, there is a feminine-bias to Title IX cases, given that the original impetus was to give females a better break.  That loaded the investigations and investigative staff with norms and people who had tunnel-vision (toward females) in their approach to investigations.

I wouldn't be surprised at a backlash of cases going the other way. That happened in Title VII cases. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. v. McDonald (1976).

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's two sides to every story.

Erm yes. What's yours?

Are you talking about the post subject?  How can I possibly have a "story" about it?  I wasn't there.

Each case is fact-driven.  Depends upon the evidence.  For example, perhaps he was a passive-aggressive, and was nagging her by threatening suicide.  Juries are good at sorting out what is valid and what is phony.

Quill we all have a "story" on every topic and we were "not there".
I don't understand that at all but don't worry because I don't need to.

Original Quill wrote:That said, there is a feminine-bias to Title IX cases, given that the original impetus was to give females a better break.  That loaded the investigations and investigative staff with norms and people who had tunnel-vision (toward females) in their approach to investigations.

This is about denying a person their education near their exam time where there were clearly other options here

Its plain discrimination

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Erm yes. What's yours?

Are you talking about the post subject?  How can I possibly have a "story" about it?  I wasn't there.

Each case is fact-driven.  Depends upon the evidence.  For example, perhaps he was a passive-aggressive, and was nagging her by threatening suicide.  Juries are good at sorting out what is valid and what is phony.

So she could not handle nagging? 

My heart bleeds for her.

She should have just asked for this to be handled far better, which she made him feel worse than he already did

This could have been handled better, which cost him his place there, when there was no need for such action

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:That said, there is a feminine-bias to Title IX cases, given that the original impetus was to give females a better break.  That loaded the investigations and investigative staff with norms and people who had tunnel-vision (toward females) in their approach to investigations.

This is about denying a person their education near their exam time where there were clearly other options here

That's what Title IX is all about.

Thorin wrote:Its plain discrimination

You've made that judgment based upon a newspaper article. That's fine. It's a little premature for me, but our opinions don't matter anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


This is about denying a person their education near their exam time where there were clearly other options here

That's what Title IX is all about.

Thorin wrote:Its plain discrimination

You've made that judgment based upon a newspaper article.  That's fine.  It's a little premature for me, but our opinions don't matter anyway.

Is that why the judge is ruling this week on allowing him back entry?

You may want to read the article first before making an arse of yourself as per usual

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you talking about the post subject?  How can I possibly have a "story" about it?  I wasn't there.

Each case is fact-driven.  Depends upon the evidence.  For example, perhaps he was a passive-aggressive, and was nagging her by threatening suicide.  Juries are good at sorting out what is valid and what is phony.

So she could not handle nagging? 

My heart bleeds for her.

She should have just asked for this to be handled far better, which she made him feel worse than he already did

This could have been handled better, which cost him his place there, when there was no need for such action

When the whole discrimination thing happened with Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) it was with a clear understanding of who the victims were. They were the ones with a clear history of discrimination, right-wrong, good-bad, This is why I persistently say there can't be real discrimination without a history of disenfranchisement.

When the gender discrimination movement came along, it was more about role adjustment. Sure, you can restate it as disenfranchisement, but in the case of gender, for every instance of wrong to the female, there is a counter-instance of wrong to the male.

This is just another case, playing that out. The original approach to these cases (Title IX) was with the template of racial discrimination, and (as I've stated above) the original approach was female-biased. But as we progress we see that we have used the wrong paradigm, and hence the wrong presumptions. Women are not always victims. Women can be nasty, as you seem to feel in this case, didge. But, not all women are nasty, and some can still be victims. Let's go to trial and let the jury decide.

This is just another contest (lawsuit) over these issues.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So she could not handle nagging? 

My heart bleeds for her.

She should have just asked for this to be handled far better, which she made him feel worse than he already did

This could have been handled better, which cost him his place there, when there was no need for such action

When the whole discrimination thing happened with Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) it was with a clear understanding of who the victims were.  They were the ones with a clear history of discrimination, right-wrong, good-bad,  This is why I persistently say there can't be real discrimination without a history of disenfranchisement.

When the gender discrimination movement came along, it was more about role adjustment.  Sure, you can restate it as disenfranchisement, but in the case of gender, for every instance of wrong to the female, there is a counter-instance of wrong to the male.

This is just another case, playing that out.  The original approach to these cases (Title IX) was with the template of racial discrimination, and (as I've stated above) the original approach was female-biased.  But as we progress we see that we have used the wrong paradigm, and hence the wrong presumptions.  Women are not always victims.  Women can be nasty, as you seem to feel in this case, didge.  But, not all women are nasty, and some can still be victims.  Let's go to trial and let the jury decide.

This is just another contest (lawsuit) over these issues.

Who cares about the above, we are talking about this case and basing it off the facts he was denied his education

That is discrimination

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's what Title IX is all about.



You've made that judgment based upon a newspaper article.  That's fine.  It's a little premature for me, but our opinions don't matter anyway.

Is that why the judge is ruling this week on allowing him back entry?

Not exactly. A temporary restraining order is used when the loss will be irreparable. It's a proceeding, aside from the ultimate merits, based upon holding the status quo when events are moving forward and could create the loss de facto. One of the elements to consider on a TRO is the probability of winning, so it could be a measure of the merits. But that's only one factor.

Thorin wrote:You may want to read the article first before making an arse of yourself as per usual

Usually, when someone uses that old saw, he's losing. You've made a prejudicial error, didge. You've decided before a careful consideration of the facts and issues.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When the whole discrimination thing happened with Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) it was with a clear understanding of who the victims were.  They were the ones with a clear history of discrimination, right-wrong, good-bad,  This is why I persistently say there can't be real discrimination without a history of disenfranchisement.

When the gender discrimination movement came along, it was more about role adjustment.  Sure, you can restate it as disenfranchisement, but in the case of gender, for every instance of wrong to the female, there is a counter-instance of wrong to the male.

This is just another case, playing that out.  The original approach to these cases (Title IX) was with the template of racial discrimination, and (as I've stated above) the original approach was female-biased.  But as we progress we see that we have used the wrong paradigm, and hence the wrong presumptions.  Women are not always victims.  Women can be nasty, as you seem to feel in this case, didge.  But, not all women are nasty, and some can still be victims.  Let's go to trial and let the jury decide.

This is just another contest (lawsuit) over these issues.

Who cares about the above, we are talking about this case and basing it off the facts he was denied his education

That is discrimination

You sound like Donald Trump. You want to make a snap decision, fook the facts.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Who cares about the above, we are talking about this case and basing it off the facts he was denied his education

That is discrimination

You sound like Donald Trump.  You want to make a snap decision, fook the facts.

You sound like Caligula

So what, its clear he was denied his education

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You sound like Donald Trump.  You want to make a snap decision, fook the facts.

You sound like Caligula

So what, its clear he was denied his education

"Names and faces..." didge? When I get to this point with you, it's clear you have lost and are only trying to save face.

I'll be moving on to more deserving discussions.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You sound like Caligula

So what, its clear he was denied his education

"Names and faces..." didge?  When I get to this point with you, it's clear you have lost and are only trying to save face.  

I'll be moving on to more deserving discussions.

So in other words you cannot discount discrimination

More so the fact he was denied education

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"Names and faces..." didge?  When I get to this point with you, it's clear you have lost and are only trying to save face.  

I'll be moving on to more deserving discussions.

So in other words you cannot discount discrimination

More so the fact he was denied education

Take your own advice and read the whole thread.  You lost track of what was being said about a quarter way through.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So in other words you cannot discount discrimination

More so the fact he was denied education

Take your own advice and read the whole thread.  You lost track of what was being said about half way through.

Misdirection again

I am spot on what this is about and lets see who is right, as I bet the judge allows the boy back in.

You haven't been discussing the topic for the last 3/4's of the thread. You've been busy being rude.

You failed even to noticed that we are on the same side, save that I've been more mature and reasonable about it. You are so quick to rush to your own judgment that you haven't thought things through.

Didge, typical...you are a cataloguer, not a theorist.

Original Quill wrote:You haven't been discussing the topic for the last 3/4's of the thread.  You've been busy being rude.

You failed even to noticed that we are on the same side, save that I've been more mature and reasonable about it.  You are so quick to rush to your own judgment that you haven't thought things through.

Didge, typical...you are a cataloguer, not a theorist.

1) Misdirection, as yes I have, you have avoided the discrimination

2) Are we, seems to me you are arguing against my views

3) Typical back track by Quill

You live for antagonism, not reason or truth. Didge, I understand why your professors let you go.

You could do better if you didn't personify your adversaries. Listen and respond to the point, not the person. You get into all these needless insults and angry retorts, and for what? Certainly you don't think it goes anywhere, do you?

Original Quill wrote:You live for antagonism, not reason or truth.  Didge, I understand why your professors let you go.

You could do better if you didn't personify your adversaries.  Listen and respond to the point, not the person.  You get into all these needless insults and angry retorts, and for what?  Certainly you don't think it goes anywhere, do you?

1) More cuckoo imagination.

2) This is about the case of discrimination, not you making once again an arse of yourself making up hilarious bullshit

3) This is discrimination,

If the chap is mentally ill and suicidal, it was a harsh decision - he clearly needs help.

Raggamuffin wrote:If the chap is mentally ill and suicidal, it was a harsh decision - he clearly needs help.

wow, we agree

Not sure if there is a faint smilie

Didge, you abandoned discrimination as the topic long ago.  You said:

Thorin wrote:Who cares about the above, we are talking about this case and basing it off the facts he was denied his education

So, nothing anyone else says is relevant, because you have already prejudged the issue.

Thorin wrote:1) More cuckoo imagination.

2) This is about the case of discrimination, not you making once again an arse of yourself making up hilarious bullshit

You want to discuss: "cuckoo imagination", "making an arse", and "hilarious bullshit".  How does that lend itself to the topic of Title IX or this man's plight?  You've abandoned that topic.

Original Quill wrote:Didge, you abandoned discrimination as the topic long ago.  You said:

Thorin wrote:Who cares about the above, we are talking about this case and basing it off the facts he was denied his education

So, nothing anyone else says is relevant, because you have already prejudged the issue.

You want to discuss: "cuckoo imagination", "making an arse", and "hilarious bullshit".  How does that lend itself to the topic of Title IX or this man's plight?  You've abandoned that topic.

Because what you posted had zero relevance to this case

Hence why i ridiculed such irrelevant rubbish

You can go off other cases, but this is about this case, not others

I just think you are a tit when it comes to cases like this, where you try to look smart, over something so simple as discrimination

As of yet you have failed to show its not discrimination

If you agree with me, which seems out of place to your first views, then its you being the complete arse here

"Zero"? "Irrelevant rubbish"? "Tit"? "Look smart"? "Complete arse"? Great contributions to the discussion, eh? Most relevant.

To respond would be gratuitous.

Original Quill wrote:"Zero"?  "Irrelevant rubbish"?  "Tit"?  "Look smart"?  "Complete arse"?  Great contributions to the discussion, eh?  Most relevant.

To respond would be gratuitous.

It would be if you talked about the case.