From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Who John Doe (and the anonymous company) is ...
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:16:15 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.022905.29588@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Now, the true story.
>

This of course, 'is true', in terms of your interpretive process.  You would
have to post the story as is- and let the rest of us sort of details and
come to our own conclusions- not yours.

>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.
>

So how old does a story have to be?  This is pretty old stuff.  There is
no reason to dredge it up now.

>"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.

So you are IMPLYING that the candidate had knowledge of what was transpiring?
Are you saying that Prof. Cox blackmailed someone? Where are the facts to
backup this statement.

>
>Stanford issued NO know public OR private apology!
>

It is not up to Stanford to apologize.  They are not responsible for what
everyone does with their private lives.  I will venture to say that he
(Cox) did not do what he is 'suspected' of doing at the Univeristy. At
least I have seen no facts to support this scenario.

>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 every 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..."
>
>

Well- I believe that if a person makes a mistake in their lifetime, it does
not negate everything that they may have accomplished.  He may have helped
and been a great mentor to many students.  It is of course, not acceptable
in terms of what he is suspected of doing- and remember it is 'suspected'.
So it is up to the people at that time and place to decide how they want
to handle the situation as far as, a memorial goes.

Would everyone feel better if they had buried him in an unmarked grave, and
then made no comments about his life and its contributions, and basically
ignored him as an individual.

He obviously contributed to the University as a member of it.

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

Your use of 'sicko' is not applicable- it is a subjective viewpoint that
you hold.  He is 'as one would say' innocent, until proven guilty of
said crime, that is the way it works.

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

And if that is true- what is wrong with it?

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

So- are you taking a subjective and suspected case and now apply it as
though it were true? 

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

And it may all be true- and maybe a completely correct description.

It appears that if a person makes a mistake in their life, then everything
they have ever done counts for nothing.  We could cancel out most people
in history who have great accomplishments credited to them, if this were
the way we view things.

>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".
>

And Again and Again where is the judicial support of his guilt?  This person
made a statement based upon hearsay and second hand knowledge.

WELL LET THE WITCH HUNTS BEGIN- maybe we need to revitilize J. McCarthy.

>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.
>

Where did you derive this conclusion- your own opinion?  If there was never
a case, and never a trail, and never a conviction, then I do not see where
the University should make such information available.

Again this type of information is just what TV and Magazine tabloids are
after.  They can build up a big drama and case, and yet have no backing
in judicial process or outcome.

Have you considered, as I have stated before, that the family did not want
it publicized.  Maybe they asked to keep it quiet.  The victim and family
have been through enough.  Why make it a public issue, if that is what the
family does not want.