A lesbian professor at Central Michigan University admitted that she made up the story about being spat on, called “a cross-dressing fag,” and cold-cocked in the face at a Toby Keith concert. Her confession came after police investigated security footage of the parking lot where she claimed to have been attacked. She achieved the black eye by punching herself.
From The Daily Caller:
Poindexter, who announced her lesbianism three years ago and has since been passionate about it, later posted a Facebook photo of herself with an impressive black eye and a corresponding story of indignant outrage. That post went viral and was reported by several news outlets.
Much pity ensued. “We’re proud of you, Mari, for taking a stand,” taxpayer-funded Central Michigan University officials wrote on the school’s Facebook page. “CMU stands with you.”
Turns out, Poindexter got the shiner because she “punched herself in the eye,” according to local police.
She also suffered from mental illness.
OK. She lied about being attacked for attention. She’s a recently born-again lesbian who’s mentally unstable and loves to talk about being a lesbian. What’s the big deal? Sure, the lengths she went to (punching herself in the eye socket) teeter on “Fight Club” levels of insanity, but other than that, this is nothing we haven’t seen before.
But her lying about getting beat up isn’t as much of an issue as her warped justification for why she did it, which plays into a broader and far more concerning picture.
Poindexter defended her lie by saying it helped in “starting a dialogue” about LGBTQ+ rights.
This defense — justifying a lie about being the victim of a hate crime in order to open a discussion — is becoming more and more popular as of late, and it’s a dangerous road to go down. Since Poindexter didn’t accuse a specific person, her tall tale was more or less harmless. But this isn’t the case with other false victims who have used the “starting a dialogue” defense.
Ashe Schow of Washington Examiner laid out several recent instances where the defense was used. In some of them, the false victims blamed specific people — people who will see no justice for being wrongfully accused of heinous crimes because colleges are eating up the “starting a dialogue” defense.
There’s this race hoax, which occurred at the State University of New York at Albany in January:
In the recent race hoax at State University of New York at Albany, where three black women started a fight on a bus and accused a dozen white people of attacking them for being black, a professor at the school claimed they were justified because they started a conversation on race.
“My white students have said this has opened up conversations,” said Sami Schalk, an assistant professor in SUNY Albany’s English department. “Things that are inadvertent, small, but that these white students have no experience with, not being a person of color on this campus.”
MTV used it to defend the Rolling Stone’s debunked University of Virginia rape story:
After Rolling Stone’s article about an alleged gang-rape at the University of Virginia was proven to be a hoax, media outlets — including MTV — rushed to suggest that the article “may have unintentionally started a conversation that’s bigger than the controversy itself.”
Oddly, but not unexpectedly, that “conversation” was not about avoiding a rush to judgment when accusations check all the boxes in preferred narratives, but about accusers needing to be believed.
And administrators at Duke used the defense on the 10-year anniversary of the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax:
The most famous rape hoax of the past decade, the Duke Lacrosse case, involved campus administrators rushing to judgment to condemn the accused team. A “Group of 88” professors and administrators circulated an ad with quotes from students and others about how the accused were racists and how the culture at Duke promoted rape.
For the 10-year anniversary of the hoax, some of the administrators who promulgated the ad claimed they weren’t trying to condemn the students (yeah, right) but were merely trying to start a discussion on campus.
The typical American college’s willingness to go along with the “starting a dialogue” defense is precisely why they should never be trusted to handle such crimes. Not only is the defense a massive injustice to the wrongfully accused, but it prevents those who lie from being held accountable for their actions. And we’re not talking about small lies here. These are lies that put the lives of the accused on the line.
Right now, at any of the colleges listed above and at many, many more colleges across the nation, there will be next to zero repercussions for a gay person who lies and says John Doe called him a fag. Nor for a black person who lies and says John Doe beat him because he’s black. Nor for a female who lies and says John Doe raped her. Not only will there be zero repercussions, but these people are now being congratulated for starting a dialogue. That is a tremendous problem.
I’m not denying that racism and hate and rape don’t happen on college campuses. They do. Far too often. But start a dialogue without ruining the life of an innocent person. And definitely stop praising people as arbiters of change if they do get caught lying..
Image via YouTube