USC Students Demand Professor be Fired for Saying ‘Accusers Sometimes Lie’
“Nearly 100 students at the University of Southern California attended a rally at noon”
This professor had the nerve to cite a fact. Now the campus mob is after his job.
PJ Media reports:
Students Demand Professor Be Fired After He Champions Due Process, Says ‘Accusers Sometimes Lie’
Nearly 100 students at the University of Southern California attended a rally at noon on Monday demanding a tenured professor be fired after he sent a reply-all email last Thursday to the student body noting that “accusers sometimes lie.”
“If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now,” emailed Professor James Moore.
The email — in response to a reply-all email that urged students to “Believe Survivors” on the day of Christine Ford’s testimony — triggered what one school admin said was “hundreds” of emails from concerned students and alumni since Thursday.
USC students Audrey Mechling and Joelle Montier then organized a Facebook rally against the engineering professor, entitled “Times Up for James Moore.” Monday at noon at the USC Argue Plaza, nearly 100 students yelled, “Times Up, No Moore!” dozens of times.
Roughly 7 students also spoke at a makeshift podium, sharing sharing stories of sexual abuse. The crowd then marched over to the office of Dean Jack Knott, according to multiple live-streams of the protest.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There goes that word “demand” again. They are there to learn, and to exchange ideas, including ones they don’t like. Hey, kids? If the prof offends you, drop out.
Well, he’s tenured so they won’t get their wish. The question is will administration look for another way to fire him if they go along with or attempt to cajole this nonsense.
“Believe Survivors”?
These protesters are so tied up in PC language they can’t even speak clearly.
Of course one believes “survivors,” for by definition a “survivor” is one who’s actually been assaulted. Thus “Believe survivors” is a tautology.
Presumably what they mean to say i,s “Believe [all] accusers.” Yet they can’t actually say that, because PC demands they call all accusers “survivors.”
Of course, they could also say “Accusers never lie.” Yet, because “never” requires only a single counterexample to disprove, and because numerous such counterexamples are widely known, no one would say such nonsense.
Would they?