Online Harassment Against Asian-American Professors

An allegedly deafening silence from law enforcement

I wanted to flag an article today in The Verge that discusses the long-time online harassment of my colleague Prof. Alex Sinha and his wife Prof. Janani Umamaheswar, among other targets of anti-Asian American attacks. The piece raises important questions about what is the role of law enforcement in such cases and why we see so little intervention even with persistent abuse.

Comments

[Noscitur a sociis]

The piece raises important questions about what is the role of law enforcement in such cases and why we see so little intervention even with persistent abuse.

Based on the article, the answer seems obvious: law enforcement has only a minimal role to play in cases like this, because there isn't any basis to think that a crime has been committed.

[Number 2]

According to the article, the professor had an opportunity to file charges against the alleged assailant at the very outset, but chose not to. Seems a little rich to me to complain about “little intervention.“

[y81]

Once upon a time, of course, mentally disturbed individuals who persistently annoyed other people, but committed no crimes, were involuntarily confined. Liberal lawyers put a stop to that. Now they don't like their handiwork.

[santamonica811]

y81,
I would not describe Gov. Ronald Reagan as a liberal. (And, obviously; he was never a lawyer.) Other than that, great comment.

[Michael P]

Reagan wasn't a significant pusher of deinstitutionalization. You'll sound a lot less dumb if you learn real history instead of leftist revisionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lawyers put a stop to it?

Did you perhaps mean that the government put a stop to it, following or otherwise in response to typical legal and legislative proceedings?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

so little intervention even with persistent abuse

Many of the bigoted, mean-spirited comments recounted by that Verge article resemble comments published every day at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Heal thyself, professor.

[Idihax]

I don't really care. 80% of Asian vote Democrat, so that makes them the enemy in my eyes.

[Krayt]

Why not make inroads instead of crypto (and not so crypto) xenophobia? Xeno-malus whatever. Point out how they are living free here, with relatively little corruption to worry about, and can make a better life for themselves and their families.

[Idihax]

We've tried. Small government and traditionalism only appeals to whites, no matter what we do.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I smell a recent name change...

[Randal]

Let me guess. The perpetrators are ivy league admissions officers.

[y81]

What a bizarre fantasy world of endless racist persecution Prof. Manta and her friends live in. As one example in a generally confused and nonsensical article, a disturbed man kills six Korean and two white prostitutes (the last two lives don't matter to Prof. Manta), and that represents a deadly threat to two Indian professors. Both George Orwell and Sigmund Freud, from different perspectives, discussed the disordered mental outlook that underlies this sort of reasoning.

[Michael P]

Prof. Manta didn’t mention those murders at all, do there's no basis to claim she called some of the victims' lives over others. What did Orwell and Freud say about your behavior?

[y81]

From the article: "The graphic nature and racist sentiments sent a wave of fear and anger through Sinha’s body. In the last year, a white man had murdered six Asian women in three Atlanta area spas . . . ."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It wasn't Prof. Manta's article...

But I did also notice that when reading it. I wasn't in the US at the time, but I find it hard to believe that there was any serious justification for such fears. Was there a "Pearl Harbor" moment I missed?

[James K. Polk]

What a pathetic and dishonest article. It's exactly the kind of article I would expect Manta to be energized by.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hi "S."

[Number 2]

Prof. Manta,

I noticed that the article to which you linked talks about how the Obama and Biden rules governing the investigation of sexual misconduct allegations under Title IX have weakened due process protections and leave professors vulnerable to bogus allegations. I am curious why did you did not consider that worthy of note.

[ReaderY]

Since they know S.’s identity, why can’t they get restraining orders, sue for libel, etc.? Why can’t they use the legal means available to them? They will be in a much better position if there are court orders S. can be caught violating.

There seems to be enough evidence of a true threat to make a restraining order viable.

[Number 2]

If I recall correctly, the mysterious S originally attacked multiple professors. The others notified law enforcement. The professors who are the subject of the article declined to do so for ideological reasons. Notably, the mysterious S appeared to cease targeting the professors who contacted law-enforcement and focused her continuing attention on the two professors who did not. A lesson here perhaps?

[ReaderY]

That puts the article in a very different light. If they are choosing not to use methods that impose real consequences on S. for ideological reasons, they can’t complain that the methods they are limiting themselves to don’t work. A refusal to help oneself due to ones own Qixoticly chivalrous ideology is very different from an inability to help oneself. Saints accept that sticking to their values (e.g. compassion for S.) regardless of consequences may lead to suffering, but these professors appear to be complaining despite being unwilling to remedy their situation.

The lead example may simply not have been a well thought-through choice. But nonetheless when seen in this light, it tends to undercut Professor Manta’s overall argument.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why is this S. being protected? Who the fuck is this nutjob?