Editor,

In the last issue of TSL Dean Toni Clark responded to Kevin Herms´ criticism of J-Board training. The majority of Dean Clark´s letter is a reasoned response to some of the arguments that Herms raised. But in the last paragraph of her letter Clark writes: "I was surprised to find Kevin Herms’ attack carried into the pages of TSL, especially since he seemed to apologize for his behavior at the end of the training session. As the ´ardent feminist´ he claims to be, does he truly believe that his public displays of aggression will make women more likely to bring charges of sexual misconduct to the Judicial Council?" Herms´ letter was in no way a "public display of aggression." It advanced well reasoned arguments without attempts at inflammatory rhetoric. To characterize principled, written opposition to training protocol as a "public display of aggression" is absurd. Herms´ oppossed protocol that he viewed as unfair in his letter; his tool was reasoned argument. Clark´s letter was the first to advance a personal attack, and it ends with a shameless attempt to tie Herms´ written opposition to J-Board training protocol as an action that will keep victims of sexual assault from coming forward. It borders on fantastic to think that Herms´ letter will have that effect.

Consider Herms´ own words: "Dean Clark is correct in calling sexual assault ´an epidemic,´ requiring immediate, uncompromising action. Instances of sexual misconduct, as defined in the Student Code and once subjected to a fair judicial hearing, must not be permitted in our community. I believe we must, as a community, provide a support structure in which people affected by sexual harassment and assault feel comfortable in coming forward. On this there can be no disagreement."

As a Dean of a liberal arts community, Clark ought to show more respect for substantive arguments made in a forum of public debate. If her aim is to discredit Herms´ arguments by villifying his person, her public display of aggression was a wise course. If her aim is to sway reasonable minds by the strength of her argument, mischaracterization of her opponents and the likely effects of their arguments will only undermine her credibility. If principalled opposition to ideas is met with such vitriol, can anyone expect participants in reasoned dialogue to bring their comments into public forums of debate? Dean Clark ought to apologize promptly, publicly, and in writing to Herms.

Sincerely,

Conor Friedersdorf ’02