In our April 22 post outing 45 “Royal Asses” (Harvard Law School Social-Justice Warriors on which background information is summarized here) for their complicity in seeking to have us investigated by the FBI and Harvard merely for making conservatively inclined blog posts, we took care to observe that we do not assume that the Dec. 8 e-mail sent by protest leaders accurately reported what administrators told the leaders at a meeting that morning.
In other words, it’s possible that Harvard administrators never authorized the use of Harvard resources to investigate us, and never told protesters that they had done so. It’s possible, instead, that the two protest leaders who attended the Dec. 8 meeting and prepared the Dec. 8 e-mail simply lied to their fellow protesters in recounting what administrators had said about purportedly having us investigated.
That possibility certainly would explain why the Harvard Crimson, whose coverage of the “Royall Must Fall” / “Reclaim HLS” movement has been extensive, and strongly biased in favor of the leftist protesters, has — despite the passage of a full month — not published a single article relating to our April 22 post about the Royall Asses’ efforts to have us investigated, even though the story has been covered by several national outlets.
After all, if Harvard Law School administrators, when contacted by the Crimson, had confirmed that they’d used Harvard resources to investigate us merely for blogging, or had refused to comment, that would have been news, as that would have given a spin to the story favorable to the leftist student protesters — it would have supported the view that administrators had sided with the leftist students in believing that it was justifiable to try to unmask their anonymous detractors.
But if, instead, Harvard Law School administrators had, when asked about it by the Crimson, denied ever telling protesters that Harvard was investigating our blog or attempting in any way to uncover our identities, that would be a story the Crimson would not want to cover. A story about leftist protest leaders lying to their fellow protesters about what Harvard administrators had supposedly told them in a meeting would not be a story that the liberally inclined Crimson would ever want to run.
Do we have have any other reasons to think that the Royall Asses who attended the Dec. 8 meeting, and sent the Dec. 8 e-mail to their fellow protesters, might have lied in claiming that administrators had told them that Harvard was trying to uncover our identities? Yes. Three in particular.
First, in launching our blog last November, we worked from the computers we normally use, often connecting through the Harvard computer system, and we made no effort to hide our internet tracks (because we knew no court would ever authorize a warrant to uncover our identities merely for documenting evidence of a hate-crime hoax, and it never occurred to us that someone would try to have us investigated using extralegal means). So we assume that if Harvard had put its technical people on our trail, they would have uncovered the identity of at least one of us back in December, and one or more of us would have been contacted for, at minimum, a friendly chat about our blogging. That never happened.
Second, one must keep in mind the general principle that “SJWs Always Lie” — the title, of course, of the most important book of 2015. (For more on that Vox Day masterpiece, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and here).
Third and finally, we have solid evidence that on at least one occasion, one of the leaders of the protest movement lied to his fellow protesters concerning what had happened in a meeting with administrators. The e-mail chain (which we obtained from the same anonymous whistleblower who contacted us in early December, and who forward the e-mail chain following our April 22 post which questioned whether HLS administrators had actually told the protest leaders on Dec. 8 that they were having us investigated) is a fascinating read, and we won’t spoil it for you by getting into the details, but here is a quick summary:
- On Wed., Dec. 9, 2015, leaders of the protest movement met with Dean Martha Minow and had an “extended conversation.”
- On Mon., Dec. 14, 2015, Dean Minow asked to meet with the protesters again to “focus on next steps,” either on Dec. 17 or on Jan. 26, as they might prefer.
- The protesters declined both dates. In fact, through Feb. 26, 2016, they rebuffed all of Dean Minow’s efforts to meet with them, as Dean Minow mentioned when protesters traveled to Brandeis University on Feb. 26 to heckle her at an event in which she was being honored (watch starting here; more on Brandeis video here).
- On Feb. 8, 2016, one of the protest leaders — Keaton Allen-Gessesse, who we hereby officially designate as “Royall Ass # 47” — sent Dean Minow an e-mail purporting to summarize various measures on which Dean Minow supposedly agreed during the Dec. 9 meeting. He copied 21 of his fellow protesters on the e-mail.
- On Feb. 10, 2016, writing on behalf of Dean Minow, Dean of Students Marcia Sells responded by making clear her view — although her language was more polite than ours — that the Feb. 8 e-mail was full of lies. We are strongly inclined to credit Dean Sells’s account of the matter and to conclude that this protest leader did indeed lie to his fellow protesters about what happened at the Dec. 9 meeting with administrators — thus making it quite plausible to think that the protest leaders who attended the Dec. 8 meeting with administrators lied later that day in recounting that the administrators had said that Harvard resources were being used to investigate us.
You can read the complete e-mail chain, ending with Dean Sells’s Feb. 10 e-mail, here.