Whoa. I just watched Dr. Jen Ashton lay into Peter Attia on Instagram. I think there is even more there than this Epstein fiasco. She said that he’s not Board-certified in anything and that he never completed a residency. She’s furious with CBS and said that she won’t appear on that network until he’s gone.
I like when people take a stand.
No.
And in case I wasn’t clear, that was no as in ■■■■ no.
I am a college professor. I am also male. I have written recommendation letters (ETA: 213 of them, across the years—I keep them in a folder on my computer) for people seeking jobs (and other things, like grad school admissions). Most of those letters, in part because of the field I am in, have been for women seeking jobs or other such placement. I haven’t known the sexual orientations of everyone those letters have gone to, but I do know a few people well enough to know that some of the recipients have been heterosexual men. And I have never said anything about the relative physical attractiveness (or any other physical features, for that matter) of the person I was recommending in any of those letters, nor have any of the recipients inquired about any of the physical features of the subjects of those letters.
So no, Professor Gelernter, that is most emphatically not just “how men behave”, or even just how heterosexual men behave. That is how ■■■■■■■■ behave.
And in my world, that is also a clear example of creating a hostile work environment, which is a justification for firing with cause—and as a reminder, people are wrong when they say that tenure is protection against being fired, because it does not protect against firing with cause.
(Which is to say: Yale, the ball’s in your court now.)
What? I bet you didn’t have female students sleep over at your house either. Man, get with the times. 
What an utter a-hole.
No, my dude, that is not how all “heterosex” men act. Most men are perfectly capable of separating their personal and professional interests and opinions. And most professors do NOT try to pimp out their students.
(Although, yeesh, it seems like a bit of a persistent issue at Yale)
I’ve written dozens of letters of recommendations and NEVER mentioned the physical attributes of any of the people, male or female. No one ever asked me about them either. Most got whatever I recommended them for as well.
What would Epstein even hire for ? Party calendar keeper ?
i wonder if the former student has connected the dots to know if she was the subject.
Soon admissions will start asking for photos - so they can select students based on looks.
This is Yale - it’s crazy.
Professor Gelernter‘s attitude is not uncommon among a certain subset of men, and it’s why Epstein got away with what he did. These men don’t understand what is wrong with their views, and they don’t want to know what is wrong with their views. They operate in a bubble of others like themselves.
I’m not shocked that the Epstein thing happened and is rightly so embarrassing many.
This guy has gone pure Trump and doubled down. Damn.
Epstein hired for Pretty Eye Candy to keep his powerful men happy. Must be willing to do anything and best if very vulnerable and 
I’m starting to think that there really is a pedophile ring of rich and powerful men. And I think we’ll uncover some of it. But the problem that will continue for another generation at least is that men like the Yale professor see absolutely nothing wrong with his attitude. I’m furious – it reminds me of all the times while I was at work some a$$hole man made a comment about my or another woman’s appearance.
ETA: Men still genuinely believe that they are superior and that they get to pass judgment on how women look. And that good looking women are “worth more” than plain ones. We are currency in their minds.
Read up a bit on David Gelernter…especially his comments about women in the past. He has some really interesting ideas about the intersection of tech and simplicity, but he holds some archaic views about women.
It’s interesting - because we all look at looks to some level - meaning, if someone walks in sloppy, ungroomed, etc vs someone who is trim, polished, etc. Today, a lot of jobs actually look for the sloppy, long hair.
So I do think many/most that hire look at what people look like at some level.
But in this case, they’re being sexualized.
The professor is sending someone to Epstein that he’d like to have sex with….vs. hire for whatever the job is.
CC never fails with good conversation - gets the facts on the table, point to the connection to the college/university world, and examine “real world” that young women and men will experience for the first time at 18, going off to school. Lots of us have been here for years, and our kids are launched, but the lessons of powerful people and abuse of power is one that bears repeating (but never nagging, of course 
).
Sadly this is not the first worldwide pedophile ring to be exposed.
Most people would not have believed the extent to which the Catholic Church and its attending power structures both covered up and enabled the sexual abuse of minors for decades (if not longer).
As shocking as this Epstein stuff is, we really need to constantly remind ourselves that his is not a singular evil. It is a pervasive one, practically epidemic in some societies and structures.
Agree with you. But I think what is upsetting people now is that the Church is a closed entity. It operates under its own rules- arcane to most people, even those relatively savvy about the inner workings of canon law.
Now we’re talking about men employed by institutions and organizations which people assumed had guard rails in place. Brad Karp- a global law firm had no checks and balances to keep partners away from sordid associations? Not talking about someone’s right to legal representation. You want to represent a pedophile? That person has a Constitutional right to counsel. But you want that pedophile scoring you a membership in a golf club, spending time socializing outside of normal “we had a meeting and then had sandwiches delivered” client/attorney dealings???
I don’t think anyone is accusing Karp of being a pedophile. But how could one of the most prominent law firms in the country not have policies and oversight and monitors and a risk management process that would have flagged the socializing and quid pro quo stuff years ago?
I know government employees have been under attack for a year now. And the upper echelons appear immune to ANY sort of ethical, legal, constraints on their behavior. But ask any lower level federal employee you know. They can’t have lunch, accept a gift, have their travel comped, etc. without approval from their ethics officer (who takes the rules VERY seriously).
So now we’re learning that the multi-millionaires and billionaires aren’t even playing by their own company’s rules? A junior associate who asked a client for favors as Karp did of Epstein would have been fired for cause by the end of the day. And had his or her mug and family photos boxed up and delivered by UPS, and phone/computer/email access turned off within an hour.
People who are at the top of some organizations got there because they believe that they are better than everyone under them, and they expect those under them to cater to their whims without question. My dad was a relatively low level manager at a major corporation - many years ago, he told us how the top brass and their buddies expected to be “supplied” with call girls during a particular annual event. Everything about this was contrary to company policy. But it was done (not by my dad, but he was privy to the information due to his job), just the same. Mind blowing. I would like to think that what happened in the 60’s isn’t happening today, but I am not that naive. The demands may change or the ways in which the folks at the top are indulged may change, but the requirement of fealty to the men at the top is still in play.
Bad behavior by millionaires and billionaires is everywhere, and it’s visible. Why are we (society) such wimps about calling it out and getting rid of them?
Something popped on Facebook, who knows if it’s true or not, that other countries such as UK, Poland, France, are disturbed by what’s been released so far and have opened their own investigations into the behavior of the rich and powerful. The fear from the powers here (again, IF, IF, this is true) is that in these countries they would be less likely to protect and cover up for some who seem to be receiving special treatment RE: redactions.
If this is too political, please let me know and I’ll delete the post.
You know they used to, don’t you? I had to submit photos to most colleges when I applied.
And the commentary on those photos- “Doesn’t look semitic but with a name like Greenberg, the risk is high”. Etc. Kept in perpetuity because the adcom’s honestly didn’t think they were doing anything dicey….