Magic Statistics

A University of Georgia student who wrote offensive comments on confidential and anonymous course evaluation forms has been found in violation of the school’s Code of Conduct.  The comments crudely mocked the professor’s homosexuality and expressed the hope that he would contract AIDS and die.

Prof Joseph Disponzio was so upset that he determined to identify and expose the culprit, despite the guarantee of anonymity.  It took a year, but he did it.

"I was initially trying to determine at what point a student's anonymity gets rescinded because of an evaluation," Disponzio said. "Evaluations are a big deal at Georgia. I went through my exams, and I actually thought it was somebody else early on. I really could not make a determination, though."

After receiving similar comments on another evaluation form submitted months later, and comparing the written forms with class exam papers, Disponzio was able to identify the student, landscape architecture major Brian Beck.

After a handwriting expert confirmed Disponzio’s identification, Mr Beck was reprimanded and ordered to write a 1200-word essay on his crime and letter of apology to the professor.

Mr Beck’s remarks are completely stupid and offensive but, nevertheless, the University of Georgia has shown that a professor with a grudge can breach its guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity with impunity.

"When a report is made that indicates a violation of law or policy, the anonymity may be waived," said Stephen Shewmaker, director of the Office of Legal Affairs.

Professional statisticians know that anonymity of a survey respondent can be “waived” only with the explicit consent of said respondent.  Others have no standing to do so.

Disponzio wrote in a letter to [Interim Dean Scott] Weinberg: "Though the evaluations are 'confidential'; such pointedly directed hate removes all rights to confidentially [sic]. Whether it is the student I suspect, or another, I will do whatever is necessary to find [him or her]."

Sorry, professor, absent direct and credible threats of physical harm, it is not for you to determine on your own authority what “removes” confidentiality.  You're the one the university should be sanctioning.

h/t: Tongue Tied 3

Failed Liberal candidate Warren Kinsella opposes Liberal MP Keith Martin's motion to repeal subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, but he doesn't really say why.  He clearly views the motion as a threat to Canadian Liberalism such as it is as we know it.  If party leaders fail to stop it, they're "pathetic".  Although agreeing that thought crime complaints against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are "utterly specious", he rejects Martin's motion.

[I]s Keith Martin's proposal the appropriate response? With the greatest of respect, we don't think so.

In this context, ”with the greatest of respect” would appear to be code for “with no respect at all”.

Be that as it may, "we don't think so" hardly qualifies as argument, and neither does much else in Kinsella's piece.  This is as close as he gets to rationality:

So, what say you, Messrs. Dion, Ignatieff, Rae et al.? Do you agree with this bald-faced move to gut human rights legislation, by one of your supposed human rights experts? Not surprisingly, the Nazis do.

That supporters of National Socialism back Martin’s motion is, Mr Kinsella insinuates, sufficient reason to repudiate it.  Kinsella says he’s right because Nazis approve M-446.

Logically, the fact that Nazi sympathizers agree with M-446 is a red herring and irrelevant to the motion’s merits.  Specifically, Kinsella’s “argument” is an example of guilt by association.

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it.
. . .
McCarthyism was a specific version of Guilt by Association in which an individual, organization, or idea was associated in some way with communism.

Invoking the Nazis, as Kinsella has done, has been called the Argumentum ad Nazium.

No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association.

Yet, German National Socialists favoured policies that the Liberal Party of Canada also accepts.  While in power, the Nazis adopted a policy of active government intervention in the economy with the aim of attaining full employment and low inflation.

Can we now expect Warren Kinsella to advocate laissez-faire economic policies with no regard for unemployment and inflation?

Previous related posts:

• Keith Martin: A Liberal MP who believes in liberty
• Liberal MP Keith Martin acts to defend freedom of speech

MP Keith Martin (at right) is a rarity these days: a Canadian Liberal who supports liberal rights and freedoms.  Questioned earlier today about his private member’s motion M-446 to restrain our out-of-control human rights tribunals, here’s what he said to reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons:

Constituents of mine brought it up to me recently and they've shown me the legal implications of what's been going on. And I think the debate over freedom of speech must happen in our country and really I think it's fairly simple. We have hate crimes legislation thankfully in our country. If something is deemed to fall under hate crimes then it should go into a court, it should be dealt with through the courts and be dealt with accordingly. Anything else that is not deemed to be a hate crime people should be allowed to say whether you agree or vehemently oppose it. Thankfully, we have a country where we're allowed to speak our mind.

It is fairly simple, indeed.  Does the Government of Canada—not to mention the Liberal Party—believe that hate speech allegations are appropriately dealt with in Star Chamber proceedings with neither rules of evidence nor the presumption of innocence, and where the complainant gets a free ride at taxpayers’ expense?

Dr Martin is absolutely right that hate crime charges belong in a proper court of law.  I do hope he’s right on his final point, but it remains to be seen whether Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are “allowed” to speak their minds.

Thanks to blogger and writer Deborah Gyapong for reporting Martin’s forthright and courageous comments.  She says she has a video clip of the scene, but the file is too big for YouTube and she doesn’t have the technical expertise to post it.  Could someone please help her out?

h/t: Free Mark Steyn

Previous related post: Liberal MP Keith Martin acts to defend freedom of speech