Last week @NancyAFrench and I published a comprehensive report detailing how a huge Christian camp enabled a superpredator named Pete Newman. This week, I describe how it tried to silence a victim who wanted to tell his story (thread): frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/kanakuk-kamp…
The camp claims it has worked cooperatively with the "overwhelming majority" of victims. But that qualification is important. When one victim (and family) balked at signing a non-disparagement agreement. They received a legal threat (/2):
When the parties still failed to agree on the terms of a non-disparagement agreement, the camp twice sought a court order to force them to sign. It even sought to fine the family more than $26,000. The camp failed (/3):
But the fight took its toll on the victim's family. As one parent told me, Kanakuk “beat us down emotionally, mentally, and spiritually with intense pressure to sign the NDA.” The camp’s efforts, she said, “left us crippled by fear and pure exhaustion" (/4):
Moreover, the camp took issue with our claim that it was on notice that Newman was dangerous. Yet we have receipts. The camp CEO testified under oath he knew the Newman engaged in inappropriate nude activities yet did not fire him (/5):
In 2003, the camp issued a disciplinary warning to the Newman. Look at the first four questions. What were they concerned about? (/6):
In 2008, the camp CEO Joe White even laughed when the superpredator bragged about all the time he was spending in hot tubs with campers, but not everyone was so amused (/7):
In 2009, when Newman was finally stopped, emails came in from anguished parents and others detailing how they tried to warn the camp. Here's one example (/8):
Here's another example (/9):
And another (/10):
What should happen? The camp should release victims from nondisclosure agreements (including confidential settlements and nondisparagement agreements), commission an independent investigation, release the results, and hold leaders accountable according to its conclusions. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing that's interesting about the right-wing civil war over Tucker/Fuentes ...
Most of the new right has spent roughly a decade mocking the moral arguments of Never Trumpers, calling them sanctimonious and weak.
Principles? Morality? Don't you know what time it is? /1
Indifference to norms became a sign of strength in a movement where "weakness" is the career-killing sin. And "weakness" is defined as giving in to anything the left or the media or the Democrats are perceived to want, *especially* when it comes to canceling allies. /2
Lots of people were uncomfortable with this dynamic, but they kept their heads down. After all, they despised the left and saw what happened to Never Trumpers and others when they tried to say that the right was becoming radicalized and corrupt. /3
One thing to remember as we go through the one millionth right-wing cycle of "Why hasn't the mainstream media covered" the thing that it has repeatedly covered ...
The vast majority of the MAGA doesn't read the MSM, but they eagerly consume attacks on the MSM. /1
This means they hate legacy media but aren't really aware of what we actually publish. The result is a highly-caricatured view that inevitably forms whenever a person reads only critiques of institutions without actually reading the institutions' work. /2
Thus, they're always ready to believe that we've never covered something we've actually covered at length, or that any given news division is biased because they're mad at an opinion article. That's not to argue that we get everything right. We don't. And ... /3
This is a great tweet by Megan. Crime is better in D.C., but that doesn't mean it's at acceptable levels.
One part of Trump's appeal is that he's seen as energetically attacking real problems, and if a person waves away or diminishes the problem versus . . . 1/
pointing out that Trump's solution is more dangerous and less effective than yours, then you're merely empowering Trump.
You have to attack the problem. Many cities (including Baltimore, for example) have implemented innovative programs that have made a huge difference. 2/
When violence is really high, even real improvements often aren't felt until they cross a threshold where previously unsafe neighborhoods are safe, disorder is replaced by real order (as opposed to "somewhat less disorder"). 3/
The Ukraine War and Oct. 7 should help us better understand Israel's decision to hit Iran. The Russian invasion of Ukraine should have woken us up -- nuclear proliferation doesn't just increase the threat of nuclear war, it can increase the threat of conventional aggression /1:
Moreover, Israel has no illusions about how bloodthirsty its enemies are. Oct. 7 left no doubt about the lack of regard for Israeli life /2:
In addition, the consequential military defeats inflicted on Hamas and Hezbollah mean that Iran is much weaker than it was. There is a unique window of opportunity here to strike Iran after its deadliest allies have been diminished /3:
A quick thread on why it's true, but very misleading, to say that "Harvard isn't entitled to our tax dollars."
No, it's not. But when it seeks or obtains federal tax dollars, those tax dollars cannot then be wielded as a weapon against Harvard's constitutional rights. /1
That's the essence of the doctrine of retaliation. I might not be entitled to, say, a government job or a government grant, but I'm entitled not to lose a job or a grant because of, among other things, my race, religion, sex, or constitutionally-protected expression. /2
In addition, even if Harvard violates its own legal obligations (I think it's highly likely that it repeatedly violated Title VI by permitting antisemitic harassment after 10/7), there is a legal process for adjudicating and punishing those violations. /3
I'm leaving Twitter, for the indefinite future. The reason is simple: this site is becoming more like Gab every day. It's a font of hatred, lies, and harassment. And while it's never been great, at least it had its uses. No longer. At least not for me. /1
The constant hatred and malice on this site is bad for the soul. The tsunami of lies and misinformation is bad for the mind. There was a time when Twitter still gave me some value. It helped me find some of the smartest and wisest voices in public life. /2
But now it repeatedly boosts the worst and most thoughtless. I just can't stay here in good conscience. I don't begrudge anyone staying. People can certainly draw different lines, and I will miss Grizzlies twitter, but . . . /3