Saturday, January 26, 2019

Witch hunts; can we stop them?

There were times of witch hysteria, in which an accusation meant ruin or worse. We had to read The Crucible in high school--I wonder if it is still required. Given the popularity of witch hunts now, probably not. Of course we don't use the term "witch", but the notion that subjective testimony outweighs any objective evidence is still central to convictions. Racism is a real thing, but the term gets slung around like mud. Remember the reaction to Damore's memo? Accusation=conviction, no appeal.

There's a bright spot in that link above:

Calef reports that in October 1692, a “worthy gentleman of Boston” was accused of witchcraft by a resident of Andover (the actual location of many of the “Salem” proceedings). The accused gentleman immediately responded by lodging a “thousand pound action for defamation” (a ruinous sum) and advising the accuser to get his evidence ready for trial. Not surprisingly, the gentleman’s accuser changed his mind, and shortly thereafter the accusations of witchcraft dried up altogether.

I gather that some of the Covington parents are contemplating this kind of option. Given that the reporting didn't bother with due diligence, and that there was obvious malice on the part of a number of commentators e.g. Disney producer Jack Morrissey, they might have a good case. The old saw says you shouldn't try to argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel, but I think I'll root for the underdogs.

No comments: