Now that the Seminary scandal is winding down or rather unraveling from a story of a massive sex scandal where a respected rabbi was accused in federal court of running four seminaries for the sole purpose of having girls available for his sexual satisfaction to a growing realization that it was only an inexcusable hug given by a respected rabbi to a student after which he was promptly kicked out by the staff and he readily acknowledged his misdeed in front of beis din. Headlines of seminaries being run as houses of prostitution has become nothing more than an inappropriate hug.
The question is why has such a relatively minor - though inexcusable transgression - triggered such strong emotions. Why have sincere and intelligent people believed the worst - even in the face of clear unambiguous facts? A similar thing happened in American in the 1970's and 1980's where thousands were falsely accused of child abuse in a hysteric atmosphere based on no evidence. Many reputations were destroyed and some spent many years in jail. See
Modern Day Witch Trial
Father Goron Macrae..
Nachlaot Tablet Magazine regarding Nachlaot
Part of the answer is that serious abuse does occur. Abuse is so horrible and disgusting that it and the abuser have to be destroyed. Lives have in fact been ruined by abuse and the betrayal of family and community when the abuse was reported. The reality is that Orthodox community - like the rest of the world - has until recently not dealt properly with abuse. But that is not enough to explain what has happened in terms of peoples emotion and propagation of baseless accusations
I would like to suggest another dynamic. There seems to be the need for people to not only have abuse prevented and abusers jailed - but that they have to be the ones who save the world from abuse. These people lose all objectively when dealing with abuse. They lose all ability to consider alternative explanations of events. They take an extreme position - if there is smoke if there are rumors if there was an over friendly personality - he must have done it. It is a lynch mob attitude combined with being a savior of mankind from abuse.
Over and over in the comments on the blogs and in the comments of certain people who have led the attack on the seminaries we hear:
"He must have been guilty - did you see the way he conducted himself?" Of course he is guilty of rape - my wife heard that 40 girls were raped." He must have been guilty if the beis din has suspicions - they would not publicize suspicions unless it really happened." " I am going to close down those seminaries - there is no such thing as a seminary where staff failed to stop abuse that can serve as an educational institution and even if the accusations aren't true but we can't allow a seminary where such rumors exist." "Don't confuse the issue by demanding evidence - everyone knows that in rape cases the girls don't say anything - but he is guilty and the seminaries were guilty because that's what everyone says." "Not only is he guilty of the worst that everyone says - but given the enormity of what is claimed about him the staff obviously knew about it and not only did nothing but they facilitated his abuse - don't defend him by saying there is no evidence. Commonsense tells you that he is guilty and if you don't believe it you are also a facilitator of abuse." "It is better that a 1000 innocent people lives be destroyed if it prevents an abuser from getting away with his crime."
Following is another example where a distinguished University accepted the gang rape charges made by a student because of the investigation of a reporter who wanted to believe it happened and ignored anything which would have ruined her "righteous" expose. Fortunately the Washington Post took the time to check the facts and the "facts" unraveled. The accused must be given the chance to self-defense and the lynch mob must be replaced by a calm and rational evaluation of the evidence
=================================
Washington Post On
Slate’s DoubleX Gabfest podcast last month, reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely explained why she had settled on the University of Virginia as the focus for her investigative story on a horrific 2012 gang rape of a freshman named Jackie at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. “First I looked around at a number of different campuses,” said Erdely. “It took me a while to figure out where I wanted to focus on. But when I finally decided on the University of Virginia — one of the compelling reasons that made me focus on the University of Virginia was when I found Jackie. I made contact with a student activist at the school who told me a lot about the culture of the school — that was one of the important things, sort of criteria that I wanted when I was looking for the right school to focus on.”
Rolling Stone thought it had found the “right” campus and the right alleged crime: Following
her Nov. 19 story on Jackie’s alleged assault in a dark room at the Phi Kappa Psi house, the university suspended all fraternity activities and a national spotlight fell on the issue of campus rape.
Now it’s all falling apart. Thanks to several days of
reporting by the Washington Post’s T. Rees Shapiro, Rolling Stone’s account is not even a semester away from becoming part of journalism classes around the country. Jackie’s friends now doubt her account of the traumatic event, reports Shapiro, and the fraternity insists it never held a “a date function or social event” on the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012, which is the date cited by Jackie in the Rolling Stone story.
Rolling Stone has issued a statement apologizing for the story, which includes this misogynistic, victim-blaming line: “In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.” But Jackie was a freshman in college when her episode allegedly took place; the story itself references her misgivings about putting her life into the public realm; she requested that Rolling Stone not contact “Drew,” the ringleader of the alleged assault; the alleged sequence of events — nine college men conspiring to attack a freshman and sexually assaulting her for three hours — should have triggered every skeptical twitch in the Rolling Stone staff. This disaster is the sole property of editors and a reporter. [...]
