From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Who John Doe (and the anonymous company) is ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:29:05 GMT

In article <1icb6pINNlj3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >>Why? A man molests a minor. He kills himself. The company
    >>does not apologize. It lauds the molestor.
    >>
    >>Why is the name of the company important? Why?
    >>
    >Let's put it in other terms- you posted and made the story
    >available. So it is up to you to make your posting
    >convincing. We do not have to believe or buy into what this
    >post is about, since we have just a substitute company name
    >here, substitute employee name here, etc.
    >
    >Reasons why the name is important? Well suppose it is a
    >company that I purchase products from, I will stop buying
    >from them, if this whole story is correct in content. Another
    >reason might be that the company makes childern toys, or
    >books, or clothes.
    >
    >So what is the big deal about giving all of the information
    >at one time.
    >
    >This reminds me of tabloid TV programs that advertise to get
    >your attention, give you tidbits and then make you (if you
    >choose) have to tune in later to get the 'whole' story. It is
    >called baiting- and it is not story or news worthy.

Very good post and questions.

I kept the name of the company anonymous because the name would most likely
cause many people to base their opinion in a different fashion.

In some scientific journals, the author(s) name of a submitted paper is kept
anonymous to avoid bias. In the "olden" days, academic search committees
would not know the name or current institution of potential new
faculty members. Nowadays of course, race, sex, and ethnic background is
often the first criteria.

The intent is not to bat, but to show the effevts of Politicall Correct(tm)
bias.

Now, the true story.

The company is legally a corporation, hence I have I called it a company,
although that is a very rare usage. The child victim is a boy not a girl.
I changed the sex solely because I didn't want to "NAMBLA" cloud the issue.
IMHO, the sex of the victim is irrelevant for the story.

The "company" is Stanford University.

John Doe is Allan Cox, a 60-year old Stanford professor at the time.

He killed himself on 27-Jan-87.

"Professor" Allan Cox had seduced a son of a Ph.D. student that Cox was
supervising. As any Ph.D. candidate can tell, your supervisor can be more
important than a boss.

Stanford issued NO know public OR private apology!

For example, 1 week after Cox's death, and 5 days after the molestation became
news, the Standford President told a capacity crowd in the Memorial Church
of such things as "[Cox] was the evry ideal of the teacher-scholar" and
lauded his "respect for people". Other accolades by faculty include:

"we trusted him; and we still do"
"decent and thoughtful man"
"[students] have lost a mentor in every sense of the word"

And by unamimous vote of the faculty senate:
"holds a place of respect and admiration in our hearts and those
of many of our alumni..."


And then they minted a MEDAL for this sicko -- the Alln V. Cox medal.

It is awarded for "faculty excellence in undergradutae research".

One of the criteria? "creative work with students"!!!

In 1990 Dean Wasow calling for nominations stressed that Allan Cox
was "a friend and leader of undergraduates .. and a gentle and humane person".

No peep, no outrage, except for one man -- A professor of rediology at
Stanford's schoold of medicine who wrote to the university paper of his
outrage of this "panegyric to a child molestor".

In any case, Stanford has settled with the family, with the usual all records
are sealed etc. And with two other families who came forth afterwards. The
settlements were extremely quick -- apparently aimed to keep ut quiet so as
to not affect funding drives.


Now, consider, JUST consider, if the victim was a 14-year old girl of a single
mother. The feminist howls of outrage would STILL be heard swirling across
the intellectually barren fields of the Politically Correct minefields
of Stanford ....

.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)