"Strangers on the Internet" Podcast Ep. 40: Prof. Brandy Wagstaff on Josh Wright Sexual Misconduct Allegations

GMU adjunct law professor Brandy Wagstaff tells her own story and some of her students'

The 40th episode (Apple Podcasts link here and Spotify link here) of "Strangers on the Internet" features George Mason University adjunct law professor and DOJ attorney Brandy Wagstaff.

Following up on our last episode in which Prof. Christa Laser discussed her sexual misconduct allegations against ex-George Mason University law professor and former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright, a second alleged victim of his speaks out in full for the first time. GMU adjunct professor Brandy Wagstaff opens up in this exclusive interview about her alleged sexual relationship with Josh during her time as his student and research assistant. She also narrates the allegations made against Josh to her by her students over the years and her efforts to motivate the law school to act.

Brandy and I discuss the culture of GMU Law and the reforms that she would like to see. Furthermore, Brandy responds to Josh's defamation lawsuit against two other alleged victims that became public shortly before recording, and she explains her own decision to come forward despite the possible risks.

Note: According to a statement printed in the media by Lindsay McKasson, counsel to Joshua Wright at Binall Law Group "all allegations of sexual misconduct are false," "These false allegations are being made public after unsuccessfully demanding millions of dollars behind closed doors," and "We look forward to total vindication in court." According to a tweet by Prof. Christa Laser, "I don't appreciate that his attorney falsely suggests we are all lying (1/2 was in writing!) & want $ (this is a lie–I only want him gone)."

Comments

[Cheerio]

“I don’t appreciate that his attorney falsely suggests we are all lying…”

Um, in most legal disputes it’s fairly typical for each side’s attorney to advocate for their client’s respective versions of any disputed factual accounts. This notion that certain accusations should be immune from such standard defense advocacy is quite “problematic” (as they say in the preachy leftist culture-war vernacular…).

[David Welker]

Defense attorneys might have a right to publicly accuse plaintiffs of lying. But such efforts don’t have to be appreciated by plaintiffs. Especially when the plaintiffs are telling the truth.

I think you are defending the practice of defense attorneys claiming that plaintiffs are lying even if they truly don’t know that to be the case. Well, I have to agree that this practice is socially undesirable and grounds for ostracizing defense attorneys. Making public accusations that you don’t know are true is not a good thing. And it is deceptive to pretend to have certainty that you actually lack when making assertions.

The argument that defense attorneys MUST act this way doesn’t hold water. No one is obligated to publicly make accusations they don’t know or have a reasonable basis to believe are true. A good response when called by the media is “no comment.”

[Cheerio]

So attorneys don't typically assert their clients' innocence, when the case hinges upon differing factual accounts?

So then...would it be OK to at least express "belief" in your own client's account? Or must one maintain that it's strictly 50-50?

That would make for some interesting closing arguments (e.g., "...members of the jury, I really have no idea whether my client or the other party is telling the truth here...so hey, just go back there and flip a coin...").

[David Welker]

I think that a person should speak with credibility. That is, not overstate the degree of certainty that one has when making an assertion.

And I believe this, as a social norm, should apply to lawyers as much as anyone else. The job of lawyer is not to spread misinformation or disinformation. A simple rule. If you don’t really believe it or are uncertain about it, you should not intentionally communicate in a manner that suggests otherwise.

The function of lawyer is not to distort the truth. But instead, their function to make sure the truths that supports their client are not overlooked.

[y81]

How would a lawyer ever know that a client is telling the truth? Only the client knows that. Christa Laser’s lawyer doesn’t know that she is telling the truth. Neither does Prof. Manta.

[David Welker]

I believe a person should not act like they know something they do not know.

This is a form of deception.

How are you supposed to know? Well, maybe you aren’t. Maybe you shouldn’t pretend like you do.

[David Nieporent]

So attorneys don’t typically assert their clients’ innocence, when the case hinges upon differing factual accounts?

That would be a more biting criticism if Wright hadn't filed a lawsuit against his accusers in which he pretty much admitted the key facts.

[mike petrik]

Attorneys cannot lie, not to their client, the court, nor the public. But lying assumes “knowing” a contrary truth, and that is a high bar. And asserting a client’s innocence is a legal conclusion, not a falsifiable factual claim.

[santamonica811]

OF COURSE they can lie to the public. And they do so, regularly. As part of "zealous advocacy."

"The government has no credible evidence that my client was there, where the victim was murdered." Said to a news crew, on the courthouse steps? Perfect fine, *even though* the lawyer has seen the evidence, and she knows perfectly well that it's reliable, credible, and quite damning. Of course, during the trial, it's her job to cast doubt upon that evidence, to explain it away, to dismiss it, and so on. Again, all part of her role to advocate for her client. (Yes, prosecutors have a different role, and have different rules regarding public statements that they know are false.)

[David Welker]

Well, I would never do this.

And it shouldn’t be necessary. The burden of proof is on the state. If you aren’t sure if your client is guilty based on the evidence, that points to reasonable doubt. Don’t say you know your client is innocent (unless you really do have a strong basis to know), show how there is reasonable doubt regarding their guilt.

The insistence that attorneys must misrepresent the truth or say things they do not believe isn’t true. But there are a lot of unethical attorneys out there trying to justify the low and dishonorable standards they have for themselves.

The practice of law can be an honorable profession. I often wonder if this attitude you are expressing has not only damaged law, but politics as well. So many politicians think it is OK to lie, cheat, and steal.

Many are former lawyers. This makes me think that we are better off with politicians who come from other professions than law, where many lawyers honestly believe that deception is acceptable.

The practice of law should be and can be an honorable profession. But it is up to individual practitioners to make it so.

[David Welker]

Actually, there is nothing wrong with wanting money after you have been victimized. After all, the alternative remedy of reversing time and eliminating the abuse is not possible.

The accusation that the “true motive” of a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit is money rather than to vindicate the truth is an accusation that can always be made by defense attorneys, regardless of the case. But it is an essentially meaningless claim. Of course, any lawsuit by a plaintiff where the accusations are known by the plaintiff to be false is ultimately brought for an improper purpose, such as for money or to harass the defendant. But you can’t make any progress on that front by speculating on the plaintiff’s motives. Instead, you must focus on the quality of the evidence and show that the accusations are unfounded.

When defense attorneys talk about the plaintiffs motives rather than the evidence, that is a tell. It indicates that they don’t have anything better to say and may not really have a winning defense.

We see the same with Trump. There, he is attacking the motives of the prosecutors as being political. But the real issue is whether the evidence supports the charges or not.

I have spoken about how I believe that 3 out of 4 Trump prosecutions are likely unwarranted. So far, I am only think the classified documents case has a sound basis. By its nature, I just think proving that Trump really knew that he had lost the election is very difficult to show, because election outcomes are only indirectly observable.

At the end of the day, we have to trust the people casting and counting the ballots, as well as be confident that no ballots were destroyed. Such confidence depends on believing what is said by parties aggregating information from people whose eyes verified the truth. No single person knows from their own senses how an election has turned out. Due to this, it makes it very difficult to establish a claim that a person knew an election wasn’t stolen from them.

For this reason, I believe these prosecutions of Trump will be very difficult and are probably unwise.

Anyway, if you notice, in both this defense and the Trump defense the same strategy is used. But we shouldn’t fall for it, but instead focus on the evidence. In both cases, the ultimate burden lies with the accusers to prove their case with evidence. And it is evidence rather than speculation about motives thar we should focus on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It will be interesting to see how it pays out, but I'm of the opinion that if the President (and ONLY the President) decides that something isn't classified, it *isn't* -- paperwork and protocols notwithstanding. It's a separation of powers issue and does Congress have the right to tell him which hoops *he* must jump through to declassify something?

Remember that the President doesn't need a security clearance -- everyone else does and has to be approved, and I'm thinking there is a distinction because of that. Remember that Jack Kennedy declassified those photos of the Soviet missiles in Cuba and a lot of people thought he shouldn't have done that because it gave *everyone* (not just the Soviets) the ability to learn how good our photography was -- and wasn't. And *did* Kennedy jump through all the required hoops, in the midst of a crisis, to properly declassify those photographs, or did he just say "present them to the UN."

[Magister]

The document mishandling charges do not depend on the documents still being classified; only that they could be used to the injury of the United States or advantage of a foreign nation. If declassified, it presumably would not create authorization for Trump to have the records; but that they were classified probably makes it easier to demonstrate that they were such.

[Michael P]

You're a fan of secret or post-hoc laws, then?

The whole reason that the clarification system exists and is used is to provide fair notice about what "national defense information" is protected, outside of the narrow categories listed in the statutes.

[Magister]

Nothing secret about the laws Trump is charged with violating, which have a long history. There are other laws that reference classification, but Trump is not charged under those. For the laws he is charged with violating, classification is a strong indicator of what could be injurious to the United States, but a failure to classify such material is not a get out of jail free card either. If it were, a spy could steal any classified information in the time span before it is classified. (It might be difficult in a trial to demonstrate that some particular information that was not previously classified would be injurious to the United States without revealing the information in court.)

I look forward to seeing if the jury accepts that Donald Trump psychically declassified the documents he is being prosecuted over, given the evidence that he still considered them secret and beyond his power to declassify once he was no longer in office. Between the judge, the probable jury pool and the MAGA acceptance of lying for political advantage, I think the Florida case is not the most perilous for Trump.

[santamonica811]

It's a mindbogglingly-stupid argument though. After all, there *is* a formal process to classify documents. (Even if one accepts the batshit-crazy premise that a president can declassify documents by wishing upon a star.) And I presume that you also accept Trump's argument that he automatically declassified documents each time he took them from the White House, just because.

So, Trump leaves the White House at the end of the day, and takes some classified documents with him, to study at night. (Yeah, I know; it's a thing that literally never happened, not even once, but play along, okay?) So, those documents are now unclassified. But, when they are brought back to the White House the following Monday, they cannot be--and therefore, are not--automatically re-classified as Top Secret (et al). And, since the secret that they have been declassified is hidden in Trump's magic brain, NO ONE ELSE knows that these documents must go through the classification process again.

His aide, realizing this, thinks to himself, "Cool, these nuclear secrets, and those vital troop movements, and these lists of covert Russian agents, are all now declassified. I think I'll pass them along to CNN." (Or to Moscow)

Ed, you do get that if Trump actually did believe he had this power, he'd not only be monumentally retarded . . . he'd be the least qualified person to be president again in our nation's history? Right? What you're suggesting is the most dangerous threat to our nation's security that I can imagine.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Ed, you do get that if Trump actually did believe he had this power, he’d not only be monumentally retarded . . . he’d be the least qualified person to be president again in our nation’s history? Right? What you’re suggesting is the most dangerous threat to our nation’s security that I can imagine."

No, what you are pointing out IS the most dangerous threat to our nation's security imaginable -- *any* idiot can become President and do exactly this...

In fact, if I wanted to go conspiracy theory about the Kennedy Assassination (which happened before I was born), I'd speculate on the CIA doing it for patriotic reasons. The Kennedy Admin was starting to come off the rails, they were "running a 'murder incorporated' down in Latin America", they were messing up Vietnam, and they'd come a lot closer to getting us into WWIII than the public realized at the time -- or that they hadn't really been told the truth about what happened at the Bay of Pigs.

And that's what we (now) know about -- I highly recommend both volumes of Howie Carr's Kennedy Babylon.

Outside the macabre, a bi-partisanly horrified Congress could very quickly Impeach and Convict a President, probably inside an hour if there were near universal support in both bodies for doing it.

That said, there is nothing preventing a President from giving CNN anything that he physically has in his possession. Other stuff such as the names of CIA assets in Russia, he'd have to request and the CIA wouldn't give it to him. They'd stall for time, likely tell key members of Congress what was going on, and resign before actually doing it.

And CNN may just shred whatever they get, particularly if they have enough people whom they respect telling them it is in the national interest to do so. People promising to give them *other* juicy stories if they drop this one...

But any idiot can become President -- and I cite our current President as Exhibit A for that...

[David Nieporent]

It will be interesting to see how it pays out, but I’m of the opinion that if the President (and ONLY the President) decides that something isn’t classified, it *isn’t* — paperwork and protocols notwithstanding.

Why on earth do you think your uninformed "opinion" on a legal question has any merit in the first place?

It’s a separation of powers issue and does Congress have the right to tell him which hoops *he* must jump through to declassify something?

Yes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're assuming that the National Security Act is Constitutional.

All it takes is five SCOTUS justices to say it isn't, and it ain't.

[David Nieporent]

The last refuge of the Internet IANAL scoundrel is to respond to statements about the law with "well, the law could change."

[Dilan Esper]

I do think that declassification is probably an inherent power of the Presidency, at least absent pretty specific congressional declaration that something remain secret. So if POTUS wants to blow a secret he probably can, and the only remedy is impeachment.

As far as I can tell, the problem with President Trump's position is he didn't actually declassify anything. He just kept a bunch of secret materials after his presidency was over and may have shown them to people. That's not "declassifying documents".

[David Nieporent]

I do think that declassification is probably an inherent power of the Presidency, at least absent pretty specific congressional declaration that something remain secret. So if POTUS wants to blow a secret he probably can, and the only remedy is impeachment.

Given that OLC opinion that presidents can't be prosecuted in office, the only remedy for anything they do is impeachment.

Note that you've conflated two separate questions: (1) can Congress constrain the president in what he can declassify; and (2) can Congress impose procedural requirements on declassification.

While I don't think the president has plenary declassification power, I do think there would be incredible levels of deference to a president on substantive declassification decisions; it's hard to imagine a court second guessing a president if he says, "I decided that this information wasn't important to keep secret" — let alone if he says "I released this information for national security reasons." (As in Dr. Ed's repeated example of the CMC spy plane photos.) It would have to be something egregious, like the president admitting he did it on a whim or to impress a donor or because he took a bribe (which would be independently illegal, of course). (And yes, I do agree that Congress would have to be specific.)

But I see no reason at all why Congress can't impose procedural requirements, which would not similarly interfere with presidential discretion.

[Dilan Esper]

I'm skeptical even about the procedural requirements- if the President wants to announce "this fact is now declassified" and disclose it to Chris Wallace in a TV interview, I don't see how Congress can do anything about that other than impeach the President, and I also don't see how a President can be prosecuted or sued for that.

But the President has to do SOMETHING overt to declassify a fact, and he has to do it while he is still in office. Once out of office, my assumption is that former Presidents are subject to the Espionage Act with respect to secrets they learned in office and did not declassify.

[Dr. Ed 2]

*Documents* are classified, with copies often numbered.

Can he declassify a specific copy of a document, i.e. the one he has, while leaving the rest classified? I may be getting this confused with when the contents of a classified document are concurrently contained in a different unclassified (or de-classified) document, but I can see the rationale of arguing that *this specific piece of paper* is now declassified while all the other copies still are.

And then there is the First Amendment, which they get around by having people *apply* for a security clearance and thus agree to waive their first amendment rights. But a President never does this, so what, Constitutionally, permits the government to restrict what the former President can reveal about what he knows???

I realize I am also probably confusing this with copyright law and licensed copies but then IANAA — although, as there are no legal precedents on this, I’m not sure what difference that would make.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"her alleged sexual relationship with Josh during her time as his student and research assistant." [emphasis added]

There's another side of this that the feminists never mention -- would she HAVE BEEN his research assistant were she not involved in a sexual relationship with him?

What about the equally (or better) qualified male students who were NOT selected for this cushy gig because they weren't in a sexual relationship with him?!?

This was the story of my Master's program -- all the cute girls got assistantships with tuition waivers and the ability to present at conferences and the other stuff that helps one build a CV -- I got none of that, but guess who had to clean up the mess at 2AM when one of the professors had pushed one of said cute girls to the brink of suicide? Yep, and not doing anything isn't in me.

So this is personal with me -- it's not just the person sleeping with the professor who is disadvantaged but ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS AS WELL and hence I really have a hard time feeling sorry for students who made the choice to get into such a relationship.

And the other side of this is our current Vice President -- does anyone honestly believe that Kamala Harris would have gotten anywhere in politics if she hadn't been sleeping with Willie Brown?

And as to the abusive movie producers, what about all the young actresses with the personal integrity to say "f*ck you" and who instead went into other professions? Not the ones who slept with the schmucks for personal gain, but the ones we've never heard of who DIDN'T and instead wound up in teaching or banking or whatever, even though they'd have made good actresses?

[David Welker]

First of all, I want to say that if the situation was as you describe it, you are correct to be upset. People shouldn’t be able to obtain positions or privileges over other students by trading sex with their professor or boss. This, among other things, is deeply unfair to those who seek to be judged by the quality of their work.

However, I don’t understand why your anger seems more directed at the female students than the professor. Ultimately, if we create a society where people can get ahead by trading sexual favors, some people will indeed trade sexual favors. But as the suicide example shows, this tends to not work out very well for such people in the end.

Ultimately, the real problem in your story is the professor. He is the one that created the situation in the first place and he is the one that had the power to create a different dynamic. Since that is the effective point where change can occur, that is where most of your energy should be directed.

I don’t know what you mean about not feeling sorry for these students. I do feel sorry for them, because they clearly were not taught to put higher value on themselves and put too little value on their integrity.

Ultimately though, whether you feel sorry for them or not, the bulk of your energy should not be focused on them but on the person who has created and has ultimate control over the dynamic in the first place. And that would be the professor.

[David Nieporent]

They're all whores who deserve to be murdered, according to Dr. Ed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish much of the Volokh Conspiracy from a 4chan board (the politics and random boards, in particular). Most of the "legal" insight around here these days involves a few lawyers identifying the stupidity and ignorance of the regulars' comments.

If this is the best modern conservative legal academia can manage, the liberal-libertarian mainstream will continue to cruise forward atop the waves of American progress.

[Frank Drackman]

'Brandy Wagstaff Legal Counsel for Litigation at U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Criminal SectionWashington, District of Columbia, United States"
We had peoples like this in Med School, couldn't start an IV to save their life, wouldn't know a ruptured aortic aneurysm from an Ingrown Toenail, would usually go into Psychiatry, "Infectious Diseases"(I'm talkin' bout you, Faux-i!) and often had to pay back a few years inflicting medicine on the Injuns...
"Opens up in this exclusive interview about her alleged sexual relationship "
Oh C'mon (Man! HT Parkinsonian Joe) what kind of "Sexual Relationship"?? (I had a "Sexual Relationship" with my 6th grade teacher, she was hot, I jerked off)

Frank

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Ultimately, the real problem in your story is the professor."

No, because there is more to this story. When she called me, in extremis and told me she'd spent the prior month in her dorm room crying, it absolutely got my attention (it's what woke me up) even though I didn't know what Depression was at the time. But other people had noticed this as it was happening -- she wasn't going to *any* of her classes, she wasn't showing up at work -- and this was being noticed.

I later learned that *both* the Graduate Dean and the Dean of the School of Education were personally aware of the situation, but neither had the courage to actually *do* anything about it. Nor anyone in the program or department, nor anyone in Student Affairs (she was living in a dorm). They didn't want to challenge the professor.

Hence when I told another professor in the program at 5AM what I had learned a few hours earlier (I was convinced that she'd be OK till dawn -- I'd have done "something" if I hadn't been), it became the excuse for a mandatory 8 AM faculty meeting later that morning at which "strong words were exchanged" and the matter was somewhat resolved -- she was able to graduate a few months later.

But I wasn't -- it took me a couple years longer (and some major administrative firefights) to graduate with a degree that then was totally useless for employment, it's intended purpose. After all, whom do you think got blamed for that mandatory faculty meeting?

I do know how much better off I would be had I simply hung up the phone that night....

[David Welker]

It sounds like you did the right thing.

It is a mistake to measure the quality of your decisions only by the employment outcomes it enables. Otherwise, those who trade sexual favors for more favorable employment outcomes would be engaging in praiseworthy conduct.

Sometimes doing the right thing feels more costly than doing the wrong thing. But I think that ultimately depends on what perspective you adopt. When certain doors close, others open. I, for one, would rather enter those future doors with my integrity attached than live in a world where I had achieved a superficially better position at the expense of my integrity.

All this is to say that, based on what you said, I think you should be proud of your past decisions and you should have no regrets. If I were you, I would look more to the opportunities of the present and future than imagining what you might have achieved if you had less integrity.

[santamonica811]

David, It’s incredibly generous of you to either play along and pretend that Ed is relaying truthful and accurate information, or, to take what he writes at face value. You will excuse my cynicism if I’m more skeptical, and please forgive me if I instead assume that this is merely #1383rd on Ed’s list of, um, creative stories and personal anecdotes he’s graced us with, lo these many moons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sorry, I'm not that creative -- I don't think anyone is.

If you had ever been aware of what was really going on at a large, dysfunctional university, you'd understand that my "stories and anecdotes" are bizarre enough to probably be true -- and they are.

I could have named names above, but beyond the fact that I'm not the type of person to do that, what good would it have done? Would you have believed me then? So why should I have done it?

The point I was trying to make was that the female students are not completely innocent victims -- I don't think they are.

But I want to thank you for one thing -- you've convinced me that I really do need to write the book about UMass that I've long considered writing. Working title: The Ivory Gulag.

[David Welker]

Ed:

Your point that X isn't completely innocent isn't a good one. A person doesn't have to be completely innocent to still be a victim.

The important point is not whether anyone is completely innocent. The important point is whether a particular situation is acceptable or not. I would say that a situation like the one you have described would not be acceptable. Then, the next question, is, assuming we think it is unacceptable, how do we change it. The most logical answer to that is by focusing on the person who created the situation in the first place.

Just from a numbers perspective, it is most logical to focus on the professor, who both is a necessary initial cause and a necessary continuing cause of the problem. The female victims of this scheme don't have to be completely "pure and innocent" to make this worth stopping. And maybe you don't feel bad for them or whatever. It is still worth stopping. For many reasons that I think are too obvious to mention.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I view it as somewhat similar as to police departments placing booking photos of "Johns" on the web to discourage prostitution.

If you shamed the young "ladies" who benefit, it would end.

[Magister]

That's not a very effective way to end prostitution, although it probably does make it less visible; and some of the men shamed turn out not to be guilty of soliciting prostitution. It certainly would please Dr. Ed 2 to punish women like those he blames for his own academic failures, whether they did anything wrong or not.

[David Welker]

I don't suppose that it hurts to credit his stories. This story may be true, after all. But even if it isn't true, the principles that I elucidate for how to think of the problem I think are the best ones.

[Magister]

It would be reasonable to conclude that Dr. Ed 2 took longer to graduate with a worthless degree because Dr. Ed 2 is incapable of learning things and is stubbornly wrong almost all the time, both attributes amply demonstrated in his comments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that you've disagreed with a few of the things that Dr. Ed has written....

[Magister]

I have demonstrated repeatedly that Dr. Ed 2 is completely wrong, although I’m neither as thorough nor as efficient as David Nieporent. It’s usually as easy as falling off a log, and only occasionally harder than a single Google search. An example regarding Heather Heyer:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/12/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-12-1795-4/?comments=true#comment-10195866

That's the answer to the question you posed two weeks ago:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/13/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-13-1788-4/?comments=true#comment-10196145

[David Nieporent]

But I wasn’t — it took me a couple years longer (and some major administrative firefights) to graduate with a degree that then was totally useless for employment, it’s intended purpose. After all, whom do you think got blamed for that mandatory faculty meeting?

Yes, the problem wasn't that you're a serial fabricator; it's that you told a professor that another professor was sleeping with a student.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

The harem and the problems it was causing were already known by everyone all the way up the chain of command, including the other professor.

I merely told him about the concerns I had about the wellbeing of a fellow student in the program -- above and beyond the ongoing turmoil & tumult. It's years later now, but I don't think I even mentioned the other professor, although there would have been no need to.

Everyone knew he was playing those girls against each other, for reasons I don't want to get into, the entire Division of Student Affairs knew about it.

Other than the fact that I'd received a disturbing telephone call, I didn't tell anyone anything that wasn't already WELL known.

[Magister]

This was the story of my Master’s program — all the cute girls got assistantships with tuition waivers and the ability to present at conferences and the other stuff that helps one build a CV — I got none of that

But Dr. Ed 2 did a very good job of hiding his resentment, and not acting on it by complaining to anyone or whistleblowing about what everyone knew and had already observed about a particular one of the "cute girls" he blames for his lack of opportunity, so she would of course reach out to Dr. Ed 2 in the middle of the night...

but guess who had to clean up the mess at 2AM when one of the professors had pushed one of said cute girls to the brink of suicide?

... after crying in her dorm room for a whole month?

When she called me, in extremis and told me she’d spent the prior month in her dorm room crying, it absolutely got my attention (it’s what woke me up) even though I didn’t know what Depression was at the time. But other people had noticed this as it was happening — she wasn’t going to *any* of her classes, she wasn’t showing up at work — and this was being noticed.

How sheltered was Dr. Ed 2 to reach graduate school and not know what depression was?

The harem and the problems it was causing were already known by everyone all the way up the chain of command, including the other professor.

I merely told him about the concerns I had about the wellbeing of a fellow student in the program — above and beyond the ongoing turmoil & tumult.

But never mind; Dr. Ed 2 is a limitless well of courage, who is not afraid to be wrong endlessly nor discouraged by those who would mock his unlikely anecdotes which will be triumphantly proven true by corroborating evidence any day now. Only Dr. Ed 2 could prompt those in power to act within hours on things they all already knew for so long.

But prophets are never honored in their own graduate programs, and Dr. Ed 2 has suffered in silence until now, except for the occasional prediction of administrators, professors, and advantage-taking cute girls being put to death in an impending uprising in the entire university.

In short, Dr. Ed 2 is a superhero whose presence here we are not worthy of. What superpowers can other commenters here claim? My own modest superpower is to type coherently even while rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was going to ignore it until this:

"... except for the occasional prediction of administrators, professors, and advantage-taking cute girls being put to death in an impending uprising in the entire university."

That's not funny, and I've never predicted that.

I *have* said that universities in general and UMass in particular are on borrowed time for a variety of demographic and financial reasons (including debt) that I'm not going to go into here, and I *have* said that there is a cadre of pissed off white male students, but instead of uprising as one might expect, they instead simply aren't going and hence exacerbate the demographic issue.

Everything else is funny, to the extent that an ad hominem diatribe can be funny -- but this is not. Not in a world where stuff like this happens: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/2-four-people-dead-dollar-203157302.html

Oh, and your mother wears Army boots...

Na, na, na, na....

[Magister]

It may be that Dr. Ed 2 only predicts society wide civil war, and that leftist academics will then suffer at the hands of pissed off white men who might otherwise have been students is just the natural consequence of that. He does not predict more specific deaths because that would not be funny, as Dr. Ed 2 was taught at clown school.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You honestly mean that Brandon doesn't honestly remind you of James Buchanan? Heck, Brandon's even from a Slave State (Delaware was slave until 1865 but remained in the union).

You haven't noticed how divided this country is right now?!?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Very disappointed to find out this wasn't the Professor Wagstaff from 'Horse Feathers.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

'PCU' was much better...