Posted on 10/13/2018 8:57:52 AM PDT by rktman
(College Fix) Is a woman attractive? Don’t tell anyone!
Cornell Law School opened a Title IX investigation into a report that some male students are “ranking women on their appearance” in a private group chat, Dean Eduardo Peñalver told students last week.
He claims this is not only “inherently degrading” and “childish and unprofessional” but “may well violate” University’s Policy 6.4, which covers sexual harassment and other conduct prohibited at Cornell, The Cornell Daily Sun reports.
The students under investigation are male first-years, and they allegedly ranked their female first-year peers. The university hasn’t released any information on the nature of their alleged discussion.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Law school students should know better. You simply CANNOT do this kind of thing anymore, the instant it becomes public you’re screwed. And frankly it’s rude and stupid anyway. They’re idiots, who showed they learned absolutely nothing in their classes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hottiesfortrump/
WARNING; do not go to the above site if you are offended by scantily clad pro Trump hotties. Extra warning - a few of them are posing with guns, even the evil black ones in “full semi-automatic”.
No.
Women would not rate Justin Bieber, George Clooney, Leo DeCaprio .Tom Hardy,Henry Cavill or anyone else by their looks. Never.
Even the thought is shocking.
sorry to see an age-old pastime suddenly be offensive. Perhaps it is because, if recollection serves me, many of the Cornell women struggled to rise above 6. Ithaca College and Cortland help ease the pain.
"Cornell Law School opened a Title IX [??? emphasis added] investigation ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Simply put, probably most of Title IX is based on powers that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the unconstitutionally big federal government; stolen state powers.
More specifically, note that Pres. Thomas Jefferson had clarified that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution before Congress would have the power to regulate, tax, spend, and otherwise stick its big nose into the affairs of INTRAstate schools, something that the states have never done.
"On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added]"—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
Also consider that the only power that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds to deal with sex-related issues is the voting rights-related 19th Amendment.
19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
But since the referenced sex-related mischief is clearly outside the scope of voting rights, by crying Title IX, the legal geniuses at Cornell Law School are unthinkingly helping to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers imo.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
In fact, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified not only that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, but also that powers that the states haven't expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds, the powers to make Title IX for example.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, the loss of vote-winning federal funding for schools that the feds use Title IX to threaten the loss of is arguably state revenues that the feds have stolen from the states by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, clarified by the Gibbons v. Ogden excerpt above.
Insights welcome.
So whatever they’re teaching students at Cornell Law School, it’s evidently not the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as constitutional lawmakers had intended for those powers to be understood.
The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president.
More specifically, patriots need to vote Republican ticket in the upcoming elections to elect patriot lawmakers who will support Pres. Trump in draining the swamp and promote his vision for MAGA.
Thanks for the warning.
People over 50 may remember that in the innocent days now gone a sign outside a movie theater saying “This feature contains adult content that makes it unsuitable for under 18 to be admitted” would mean the lines were so long people couldn’t get close enough to the front to read that sign for an hour. Some theaters laughably put that sign out for the early James Bond movies. Things have changed.
Actually it goes far deeper than that - just most people have no actual personal experience with Russia’s form of Communism and so are likely to look away, finding other rationalized reasons - which is what they are supposed to do - part of the Marxist-Leninist trap.
Look again and do not look away.
BD is so 80s...Farah Fawcett was the original, IMO.
Liberal Russian women are quit good looking, but American Marxist-Leftists are afraid of those women as they are out of their class, having to settle instead for a one night stand blind drunk or just blind with one of the America left’s women - else the horrors of remembering a face to face encounter for the rest of their unhappy lives.
If Cornell University disappeared, the world would be a better place.
No they live to f#@% with normal people rats must be killed
To my mind, the statutory argument falls flat, let alone the constitutional argument. This is not a university program. It would be one thing if a professor or administrator had organized this but for the students to do it themselves is another story.
However there are at least two remedies.
Can female students apply for membership to this private chat?
This remedy may be more appealing:
this section shall not apply with respect to any scholarship or other financial assistance awarded by an institution of higher education to any individual because such individual has received such award in any pageant in which the attainment of such award is based upon a combination of factors related to the personal appearance, poise, and talent of such individual and in which participation is limited to individuals of one sex only, so long as such pageant is in compliance with other nondiscrimination provisions of Federal law.
If the chat group gives a tuition voucher (of any amount) to the winning female student, are they not in the clear?
It’s what men do!
Agree....I'd hate to be young and single again. Well, young wouldn't be too bad.
I’m not as good as I once was but I as good once as I ever was!
LOL! I’m to the “I’ll TRY to be as good once as I once was.” stage.
I still vividly recall this redhead in high school. Always had strawberry cologne or whatever on. A buddy of mine commented “She’s got more moving parts than a Timex!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.