In light of recent events, clearly both of these guys learned well from the feet of their master. They must have known what he was up to.
Thanks Buck for your earlier posting today of "key" posts from FFL. Fascinating reading this evening! --- In [email protected], omg213 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Rick Archer <r...@s...> wrote: > "Bevan¹s not married. Men and women get together." > > LBS wrote: > "Deciding that Bevan doesn't deserve a fair shake, as far as I'm > concerned, is dangerous to us all, because it's an erosion of the > principle of fair play and justice." > > If the president of Harvard had a long string of serial affairs with > 15 members or wives of administration and faculty members, and women > who were leaders in the community, it would be a scandal and he would > be thrown out on his ear. Further, if the Harvard president was > sleeping with numerous students, he would be barred from any academic > administrative job forever. If the president of Harvard was using the > power and prestige of his position to seduce students, administration > and faculty to an extent bordering on rape, he would probably be > brought to court on criminal and civil charges. All of these things > have been alleged against Bevan, apparently repeatedly and > extensively. Why as president of MIU / MUM should he get a "pass" > when any other college president would be thoroughly investigated, and > if found guilty, strung up and hung, so to speak, at least on a > career, academic, social and moral level? > > Naming women publicly sinks to the level of tabloid journalism and is > uncalled for. What is called for is a thorough investigation of a > college president (who also has the position of being a spritual > leader / conduit / spokesperson for a spiritual community) who has > many allegations of activity totally inappropriate and perhaps illegal > for his position(s). > > Same for John Haglin. Stories circulate of his being a serial sexual > predator upon MUM community and students. Any presidential candidate > allegedly pursuing woman is such a predatory fashion would be > thoroughly investigated and if evidence was forthcoming, he would be > skewered by the press. Particularly given the double irony that he > also is a spritual leader / conduit / spokesperson for a spiritual > community). Why should he get a free pass? > > Naming women without evidence in a public forum is not the way to > proceed. However, on the other hand, detailing and investigating the > apparently large body of evidence against these university / spirutual > leaders as sexual predators is overdue. >
