Letter of Demand for Retraction and Apology and Notice of Illegal Distribution of the Illegal Video of Me, Addressed to CNN

Notice to Cease and Desist and Notice of Demand for Retraction and Apology

April 18, 2019

Attorney Louise Sams, Executive Vice President and General Counsel

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

One CNN Center

Atlanta, GA 30303

Re:  Defamation of Character of Sarah Braasch

Attorney Sams:

First and foremost, this letter serves as notice that the video recording made of me on May 8th, 2018, in my Yale University dormitory, the Hall of Graduate Studies, was made illegally, under Connecticut State Law, and the distribution of this video recording, either the audio or the video therefrom, is illegal under Connecticut State Law, including under CT General Statutes, Chapter 952, Section 53A, Provisions 189 a and b.  I intend to pursue prosecution for the illegal distribution of this video recording to the full extent of the law.  The distribution of this illegal video recording is a felony under CT State Law, with a statute of limitations of 5 years.  I demand that you remove this video wherever it may have been posted by any agent of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.  I demand that you remove any links to this video wherever these links may have been posted by any agent of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.  

This letter serves as a demand that all Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. agents cease and desist their grossly false and defamatory statements about me, Sarah Braasch, immediately.  This letter also serves as a demand that all Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. agents who have made such grossly false and defamatory statements about me, including, but not limited to, CNN and Don Lemon, immediately and publicly retract those statements and immediately and publicly apologize to me, Sarah Braasch, for having made those grossly false and defamatory statements.  

These grossly false and defamatory statements include, but are not limited to, the following:

Don Lemon concocted a grotesque fairy tale out of whole cloth on CNN about what had happened during the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale this past spring, and about what I had done and about what my motivations were, and about who I am.

Don Lemon explicitly stated on CNN that what I did was harassment.  

Don Lemon strongly implied on CNN that I was trolling the halls of my Yale dorm at 2 am for random sleeping black people to call the police on.

Don Lemon explicitly stated on CNN that I did this for one reason and for one reason only – out of racial animus, because of the color of my attackers’ skin.  

Don Lemon strongly implied on CNN that I had just come across a random sleeping black person in the huge main common room of my dorm on the ground floor and then immediately called the police for no reason other than I’m a racist, and I wanted to evict a black person from my white space.  

Don Lemon explicitly stated on CNN that I didn’t even try to speak with the woman whom I had encountered before I called the police.  

Don Lemon explicitly stated on CNN that I had no good reason to call the police.  

Don Lemon explicitly stated on CNN that I did the same thing back in February, 2018, during the February 24thincident.  

When asked why I did what I did he said:

“We all know why.  We all know why.”  

These are straight-up, bald-faced lies, on the part of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., including CNN and Don Lemon, meant to destroy my life, my career as a lifelong human and civil rights licensed attorney activist, and ruin my reputation and livelihood, with reckless disregard for the truth, lies which almost drove me to suicide and incited my murder.  Don Lemon lied on CNN about me.  He didn’t even try to find out the truth of what happened.  He did not meet the bare minimum requirement with respect to his ethical and journalistic obligations to report the truth before he endangered and destroyed my life by telling lies about me on CNN, broadcast to the entire world. 

The damage to my life, reputation, livelihood, good name, and career are incalculable.  I was forced to flee my dorm room and then campus. I was suicidal for near a year and forced into hiding for my personal safety.  I continue to be defamed as a racist, including this week, by CNN.  I can’t even begin to count the death threats and threats of violence that I have received.  I can’t even begin to count the number of instances of defamation as guilty of racial harassment that I have endured in the national and international news media, as well as on social media, including on CNN and by Don Lemon. My academic and legal and human and civil rights careers are over.  I will never be able to secure gainful employment.  I will no longer be able to support myself.  

I had been a lifelong human and civil rights licensed attorney activist who had devoted her life to undermining oppression in all of its many forms, including racism.  No one who has ever known me has ever heard or seen me say or do anything racist ever.  Everything that I had wished for my life is no longer possible. Everything that I had strived for my entire life has been destroyed, it has been stripped from me through no fault of my own.  

As a result, I immediately demand the following: 

  1. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. will remove the illegal video recording of me and any part thereof, wherever it exists, including all links thereto;  
  2. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. will retract and remove all grossly false and defamatory statements about me, wherever they exist, including all links thereto;
  3. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. will produce a statement, including an apology to me, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. will explain the gross illegality of all other grossly false and defamatory statements about me, as well as their grossly false and defamatory character; this new statement will take the place of the former grossly false and defamatory statements, wherever they exist, including all links thereto;
  4. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. will issue a public apology to me for concluding that I acted with any racial animus or bias in connection with this incident, and stating that all the evidence known to Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. suggests otherwise, and this public apology will be read on air on any broadcast that had previously aired grossly false and defamatory statements about me, including on CNN, and including by Don Lemon; and 
  5. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. will publicly announce that I have been publicly misrepresented as engaging in discriminatory misconduct, and this public announcement will be read on air on any broadcast that had previously aired grossly false and defamatory statements about me, including on CNN, and including by Don Lemon.  Indeed my work at Yale and beyond evidence that I harbor no racial animus whatsoever.  To the contrary, I have dedicated myself to causes of social justice including the cause of eradicating all forms of discrimination. 

I expect a response from you in short order.

Sincerely, 

Sarah Braasch

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g

Advertisements

Demand for Retraction and Apology Letter to the ACLU

Notice to Cease and Desist and Notice of Demand for Retraction and Apology

April 18, 2019

Attorney David Cole, National Legal Director

American Civil Liberties Union

125 Broad Street, 18thFloor

New York, NY 10004

Re:  Defamation of Character of Sarah Braasch

Attorney Cole:

First and foremost, this letter serves as notice that the video recording made of me on May 8th, 2018, in my Yale University dormitory, the Hall of Graduate Studies, was made illegally, under Connecticut State Law, and the distribution of this video recording, either the audio or the video therefrom, is illegal under Connecticut State Law, including under CT General Statutes, Chapter 952, Section 53A, Provisions 189 a and b.  I intend to pursue prosecution for the illegal distribution of this video recording to the full extent of the law.  The distribution of this illegal video recording is a felony under CT State Law, with a statute of limitations of 5 years.  I demand that you remove this video wherever it may have been posted by any agent of the American Civil Liberties Union.  I demand that you remove any links to this video wherever these links may have been posted by any agent of the American Civil Liberties Union. 

This letter serves as a demand that all American Civil Liberties Union agents cease and desist their grossly false and defamatory statements about me, Sarah Braasch, immediately.  This letter also serves as a demand that all American Civil Liberties Union agents who have made such grossly false and defamatory statements about me, including, but not limited to, Attorney Carl Takei, immediately and publicly retract those statements and immediately and publicly apologize to me, Sarah Braasch, for having made those grossly false and defamatory statements.  

These grossly false and defamatory statements include, but are not limited to, the following:

Attorney Carl Takei’s grossly false and defamatory statements about me in his essay on the ACLU website, Colleges and Universities Have a Racial Profiling Problem.  Attorney Takei explicitly states that I reported the woman whom I had encountered in the small common room next to my isolated dorm room to the Yale campus police, because I regarded her as suspicious, because of the color of her skin.  Attorney Takei explicitly states that my call to the Yale campus police was unjustified. Attorney Takei explicitly states that I was motivated by racial bias.  Attorney Takei explicitly states that I was weaponizing the Yale campus police. This is a straight up, bald faced lie, on the part of the ACLU, meant to destroy my life, my career as a lifelong human and civil rights licensed attorney activist, and ruin my reputation and livelihood, with reckless disregard for the truth, a lie which almost drove me to suicide and incited my murder.  

The ACLU has produced a video which grossly defames me as guilty of racial harassment.  This video is available on the ACLU’s website and their YouTube Channel, and has been widely viewed and distributed online.  The ACLU explicitly states in the video that I reported the woman whom I had encountered in the small common room next to my isolated dorm room to the Yale campus police, because I regarded her as suspicious, because of the color of her skin.  The ACLU explicitly states in the video that my call to the Yale campus police was unjustified.  The ACLU explicitly states in the video that I was motivated by racial bias.  The ACLU explicitly states in the video that I was weaponizing the Yale campus police.  This is a straight up, bald faced lie, on the part of the ACLU, meant to destroy my life, my career as a lifelong human and civil rights licensed attorney activist, and ruin my reputation and livelihood, with reckless disregard for the truth, a lie which almost drove me to suicide and incited my murder.  

Moreover, this video was made of me, illegally, and widely distributed online, illegally, for the purpose of shaming me for my disability, my mental health disability, including by the ACLU.  The fact that I was targeted for my mental health disability is made abundantly clear in the video itself, when my attacker repeatedly calls me psychotic and says that I should be put in a mental institution.  She also explicitly states that it was Yale who illegally fed her my personal information, including my mental health history, when she says that Yale knows that I’m crazy and that I should be institutionalized. That the ACLU would participate in the online public shaming of a middle aged, disabled woman, who was made a target, because of her mental health disability, is a renunciation of the ACLU’s campaigns regarding disability rights, as well as privacy, including online privacy.  The most defamatory and disgusting thing that the ACLU did in producing this video meant to destroy my life, a video which almost drove me to suicide and incited my murder, was to purposely and purposefully omit those portions of the video that make it clear that my attacker was targeting me for my mental health disability, as well as those portions of the video where my attacker stigmatizes mental illness and makes clear that Yale was illegally feeding her my personal information, in gross violation of my privacy, including my mental health history.  

The damage to my life, reputation, livelihood, good name, and career are incalculable.  I was forced to flee my dorm room and then campus. I was suicidal for near a year and forced into hiding for my personal safety.  I continue to be defamed as a racist.  I can’t even begin to count the death threats and threats of violence that I have received.  I can’t even begin to count the number of instances of defamation as guilty of racial harassment that I have endured in the national and international news media, as well as on social media, including on the ACLU’s own website, its YouTube Channel, and social media accounts, including those of the ACLU’s many agents and affiliates.  My academic and legal and human and civil rights careers are over.  I will never be able to secure gainful employment.  I will no longer be able to support myself. 

I had been a lifelong human and civil rights licensed attorney activist who had devoted her life to undermining oppression in all of its many forms, including racism.  No one who has ever known me has ever heard or seen me say or do anything racist ever.  Everything that I had wished for my life is no longer possible.  Everything that I had strived for my entire life has been destroyed, it has been stripped from me through no fault of my own.  And, most ironically, I had been an ardent supporter of the ACLU, a card-carrying member, and a donor.  

As a result, I immediately demand the following: 

  1. The ACLU will retract and remove Attorney Takei’s grossly false and defamatory essay, wherever it exists, including all links thereto;
  2. The ACLU will retract and remove its grossly false and defamatory video about me, wherever it exists, including all links thereto;  
  3. The ACLU will retract and remove all other grossly false and defamatory statements about me, wherever they exist, including all links thereto;
  4. Attorney Takei will write a new essay, including an apology to me, and he will explain the gross illegality of the prior essay, as well as its grossly defamatory character; this new essay will take the place of the former grossly false and defamatory essay, wherever it exists, including all links thereto;
  5. The ACLU will produce a new video, including an apology to me, and the ACLU will explain the gross illegality of the prior video, as well as its grossly defamatory character; this new video will take the place of the former grossly false and defamatory video, wherever it exists, including all links thereto;
  6. The ACLU will produce a statement, including an apology to me, and the ACLU will explain the gross illegality of all other grossly false and defamatory statements about me, as well as their grossly defamatory character; this new statement will take the place of the former grossly false and defamatory statements, wherever they exist, including all links thereto;
  7. The ACLU will issue a public apology to me for concluding that I acted with any racial animus in connection with this incidence, and stating that all the evidence known to the ACLU suggests otherwise; and 
  8. The ACLU will publicly announce that I have been publicly misrepresented as engaging in discriminatory misconduct. Indeed my work at Yale and beyond evidence that I harbor no racial animus whatsoever. To the contrary, I have dedicated myself to causes of social justice including the cause of eradicating all forms of discrimination. 

I expect a response from you in short order.

Sincerely, 

Sarah Braasch

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g

Email to Yale Campus Police Chief Ronnell Higgins, Asking Him to Pursue Criminal Charges Against Lolade Siyonbola for the Illegal Recording of Me on May 8th, 2018, During the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax

This is the email that I sent to Yale Campus Police Chief Ronnell Higgins, asking him to pursue criminal charges against Lolade Siyonbola for the illegal recording of me on May 8th, 2018, during the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale:

Chief Higgins,
As I have already requested, I am requesting that the Yale Police Department pursue criminal charges against Lolade Siyonbola for illegally recording me on May 8th, 2018, in the Hall of Graduate Studies, and for illegally distributing this recording, including online.  
I was standing in the threshold of my dorm room when I was recorded.  I had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this location.  Moreover, because Connecticut is a 2 party state, and this was a private conversation between two persons, this recording was illegal, because I neither knew I was being recorded, nor did I consent to being recorded.  
Moreover, this recording and its subsequent distribution, including online, was illegal under CT General Statutes, Chapter 952, Section 53A, Provisions 189 a and b.  
I look forward to your response.  
Thank you.
Best regards,
Sarah Braasch

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g

Yale’s Title VI Review Report on the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax is a Complete and Utter Farce

I want to make clear right from the beginning that Yale’s ridiculous and farcical Title VI Review Report, the impetus for which, as Yale President Peter Salovey has made clear on multiple occasions, was the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax, is immediately disqualified as illegitimate for the simple fact that NO ONE spoke to me, and NO ONE asked to speak to me. I’m just wondering how you write a report reviewing a hate crime hoax, and you interview the perpetrators of the hoax, and you interview those complicit in the hoax, but you neglect to interview the ACTUAL VICTIM OF THE HATE CRIME HOAX?!

I want to make clear right from the beginning that Yale’s farcical and asinine Title VI Review Report about the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax is immediately disqualified as illegitimate for the simple fact that it does NOT refer to the Yale Campus Police Body Camera Footage from May 8th, 2018, which exonerates me and exposes Yale’s malfeasance. It is shameful that the report does not refer to this footage.

In point of fact, Yale’s ridiculous Title VI Review Report fails to include a single interview with a single Yale Campus Police Officer. There is no interview with Officer Grace Schenkle, who filed my initial and subsequent police reports. There is no interview, even, with Yale Campus Police Chief Ronnell Higgins. I can only assume that this is because Yale didn’t want to address the truth — the truth that this was a hate crime hoax. I can only assume that Yale didn’t want to address the fact that I was repeatedly instructed to call the Yale Campus Police for any reason at any time. I can only assume that Yale didn’t want to address the content of the Yale Campus Police Body Camera Footage, which is that I tried, in vain, to tell the Yale Police Officers what was really happening, that I was the victim of harassment, that evening and for months, not the perpetrator. I can only assume that Yale didn’t want to address the fact that the recording that was made of me was illegal and that it was distributed illegally for the purpose of shaming me for my mental health disability. And, I assume that Yale didn’t want to address the fact that my attacker makes clear in her illegal recording of me that Yale illegally fed her my personal information, including my mental health history. I also assume that Yale didn’t want to address the fact that I had begged both the Yale Administration and the Yale Campus Police for months to stop the harassment, stalking, and attacks against me.

The characterization in Yale’s asinine Title VI Review Report of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax is grossly false and defamatory. It is as follows:

BEGIN QUOTE

A key marker in this timeline is the May 8, 2018, incident in Yale’s Hall of Graduate Studies, in which a White student called the Yale Police on a Black student who was napping in a common room in a residential area of the building. Coming amid a national pattern of instances in which police were called on people of color engaged in normal, legitimate activities, the event created concern and anger. In the immediate aftermath, Yale President Peter Salovey and other university leaders, including Yale’s chief of police, issued at least six statements on the inappropriateness of the call to the police, and underscored their vision and expectations around belonging at Yale.

END QUOTE

This characterization of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale is a straight up, bald faced lie.

This description of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax leaves out that I was being terrorized in my isolated dorm room on Yale’s campus for months, ever since the February 24th, 2018 incident. (I was also being stalked across campus.) This grossly false and defamatory description leaves out the fact that I was exonerated by the Yale Housing Managers regarding the February 24th, 2018 incident. These lies leave out the fact that I was the person who was terrorized on February 24th, 2018, in my isolated dorm room. These lies leave out the fact that I was being terrorized on the evening of May 7th, 2018, by persons using the small, little used room next to my isolated dorm room. These lies leave out the fact that I had begged the Yale Administration and the Yale campus police to protect me and to make the stalking, harassment, and attacks against me stop, to no avail. These lies leave out the fact that the only thing the Yale Administration and the Yale Campus Police told me to do, repeatedly, was to call the Yale Campus Police at any time, for any reason whatsoever, even if I was unsure whether such a call was merited or no.

These lies leave out the fact that I happened upon an unidentifiable human form, entirely obscured by a blanket, camped immediately outside my isolated dorm room (in the small, little used room next to my isolated dorm room), after having been terrorized in my isolated dorm room all evening, on May 7th, 2018, and that I had no idea of the identity or the race or the sex of this unidentifiable human form, because they were entirely obscured by a blanket. These lies leave out the fact that I only called the Yale Campus Police, as I had been repeatedly instructed to do at any time, for any reason, by the Yale Administration and the Yale Campus Police, AFTER the person whom I had encountered made statements to me that made it clear to me that this was very likely one of the persons who had been terrorizing me all evening and, possibly, for months. These lies leave out the fact that I made all of these details clear to the Yale Campus Police on May 8th, 2018. These lies leave out the fact that the Yale Campus Police Body Camera Footage from May 8th, 2018, exonerates me and exposes Yale’s malfeasance. (Yale continues to refuse to release the Yale Campus Police Body Camera Footage from May 8th, 2018, which exonerates me and exposes Yale’s malfeasance.) These lies leave out the fact that I communicated all of these details, via email, to the Yale Administration, the Yale Campus Police, and Yale Housing, BEFORE the Yale Police Officers even arrived on May 8th, 2018.

These lies leave out the fact that I was illegally recorded on May 8th, 2018, in the threshold of my isolated dorm room, where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and without my knowledge or consent. These lies leave out the fact that this illegal recording of me was made to shame me for my mental health disability, a fact made clear in the illegal recording itself by my attacker, who stigmatizes mental illness, calls for me to be institutionalized, refers to me as crazy and psychotic, and makes clear that Yale had been illegally feeding her my personal information, including my mental health history. (The Yale Campus Police continues to refuse to pursue criminal charges against my attackers for this illegal recording, which was subsequently illegally and widely distributed online for the purpose of shaming me for my mental health disability.)

This grossly false and defamatory description of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale is shocking to say the least.

It is shocking that the Associate Dean of Graduate Student Development and Diversity, Michelle Nearon, was not interviewed for this Title VI Review Report. I have to wonder if this is because Dean Nearon told me, in no uncertain terms, after the February 24th, 2018 incident, that if I had concerns for my personal safety on campus, that I should leave campus and move out of my home in the Hall of Graduate Studies. She also told me that she had no interest in my personal safety. She also told me that she had no intention of ever addressing the students who terrorized me in my isolated dorm room on February 24th, 2018, nor the students who were stalking me as I walked across campus.

It is shocking that no one from Yale Housing was interviewed for the Title VI Review Report, and I can only imagine that this is because the Yale Housing Managers exonerated me for the February 24th, 2018 incident, and told me that they would deal with all of the students who had terrorized me on that evening in my isolated dorm room. Also, the Yale Housing Director George Longyear was the one who told me that I was being accused of racism by a group of Yale Deans who had already determined punishments for me, including participating in a public town hall, during which I was to publicly declare myself a racist and teach other members of the Yale community how not to be racist like me. Yale Housing was fully aware that I had been terrorized in my isolated dorm room and stalked across campus for months, including by the Resident Coordinators of the Hall of Graduate Studies.

Yale’s farcical and asinine Title VI Review Report refers explicitly to the many grossly false and defamatory public statements by the Yale Administration, including President Peter Salovey, VP of Student Life Kimberly Goff-Crews, Yale Grad School Dean Lynn Cooley, and Yale Campus Police Chief Ronnell Higgins. These grossly false and defamatory public statements were part of a global, murderous defamation campaign against me, led by Yale, which almost got me killed, by driving me to suicide and inciting my murder. The Title VI Review Report explicitly quotes Yale President Peter Salovey’s egregiously defamatory and false August 1st statement, which also effectively precluded the possibility of me receiving a fair hearing at Yale, and denied me all due process rights. Also, this statement incited another online mobbing against me, including death threats and threats of violence, including sexual violence.

I can only interpret Yale’s farcical and asinine Title VI Review Report as an attempt to legitimize these grossly false and defamatory public statements by Yale that almost got me killed and destroyed my life and civil rights career.

Yale’s ridiculous Title VI Review Report doesn’t address or even consider the possibility of Race and Hate Crime Hoaxes, even though there is a Race and Hate Crime Hoax Crisis taking place on college campuses. Most of the Living While Black incidents have turned out to be Race and Hate Crime Hoaxes, including those that have taken place on college campuses. This includes the incident at Smith College and the incident at UT San Antonio.

Yale’s ridiculous Title VI Review Report does not consider the Due Process Rights of the accused. The Report treats all accusations of racism as a foregone conclusion that racism occurred, and treats any corresponding investigations as formal exercises that must be endured in order to condemn the accused. This is not surprising in the least, since the report discusses Intersectionality at length. The foundational premise of intersectional feminism is that an accusation of racism by a black person against a white person is a condemnation of racism against the accused white person. Any demand for due process is racist. Any attempt to defend one’s self against the false accusation of racism is racist. This is because any attempt to defend one’s self and any demand for due process is considered an attempt to uphold the current status quo system of oppression.

It is not surprising in the least that Yale’s ridiculous Title VI Review Report recommends NOT establishing a Title VI Office on campus. This is the LAST thing that Yale wants. Yale does not want to have to recognize the due process rights of the accused. They want to be able to simply destroy the lives of any students who have been accused of racism. They want to be able to simply oust them as individual bad apples. And, they never want to have to admit that any black students falsely accused their fellow students or engaged in any wrongdoing. Quite simply, Yale wants to be able to simply throw accused students under the bus to appease the Intersectional Left on campus.

I find it so interesting that Yale’s ridiculous and defamatory Title VI Review Report includes an interview with Susan Sawyer but not Caroline Hendel from Yale’s General Counsel Office. Susan Sawyer was the Attorney with whom my Attorney primarily dealt. She was fully aware and admitted that there was no reason to think that I had ever acted out of racial animus or bias in any way, shape, or form. She admitted as much BEFORE Yale President Peter Salovey made his grossly false and defamatory August statement about me that put my life in grave danger and precluded the possibility of me receiving a fair hearing on Yale’s campus. I know for a fact that many persons inside Yale tried to tell President Salovey how illegal, immoral, false, defamatory, and wrongful his August public statement was.

I find it so interesting that Yale’s ridiculous Title VI Review Report doesn’t include an interview with Attorney Caroline Hendel of Yale’s General Counsel. Attorney Hendel was the attorney to whom I addressed my concerns when I was unable to resolve the issue with Dean Nearon following the February 24th, 2018 incident. I expressed to Attorney Hendel that I believed that Dean Nearon was in gross violation of Title IX and the ADA. I told Attorney Hendel that Dean Nearon has expressed a callous disregard for my personal safety. Attorney Hendel essentially told me that she didn’t care and that I had no choice but to deal with Dean Nearon. This was coming from someone on Yale’s Title IX Steering Committee.

I was shocked to see that Yale’s fallacious Title VI Review Report did include an interview with Yale Provost and University wide Title IX Coordinator Stephanie Spangler. Provost Spangler was the person with whom I primarily dealt, along with Provost Cynthia Smith. Back in March, Provost Spangler told me not to worry. She told me that everything would be ok. She told me that Yale would always do the right thing, regardless of legal liability or PR. Obviously, she lied. I now realize that she wasn’t actually trying to help me, which is her job; she was merely trying to go thru the motions of helping me to protect Yale from legal liability. I am truly devastated by her betrayal. I know that I have to stop thinking that people whose jobs are to help me are actually telling the truth and that they are actually going to do their jobs and help me, and that they are on my side. She must have stabbed me in the back and lied about everything, given the outcome of the Report.

I think it’s egregious and disgusting that Yale’s Title VI Review Report refers to the grossly false and defamatory Open Letter with an Addendum from Black Graduate and Professional Students and Our Allies to Our University Administrators with Recommendations for Dismantling Racism at Yale. This letter condemns me as guilty of racial harassment and was submitted to the Administration before the Yale community or the public knew any of the facts of the matter, which the Administration subsequently lied about. The letter calls for a zero tolerance policy regarding racial policing. Well, I am here, by the grace of God, to let you know that the only person whose presence was being policed on the basis of race on Yale’s campus was me. So, in this case, if this is what they truly want, then my attackers at Yale should be expelled for their disgusting and racist behavior. I was the only person being harassed on the basis of race during the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale.

Yale’s ridiculous Title VI Review Report includes an extensive discussion of Yale’s new Belonging at Yale Initiative. I just want to make perfectly clear that Yale has made perfectly clear that this initiative does not include me, nor women like me. Yale’s Belonging at Yale Initiative does NOT include older, poor white women with mental health disabilities. I want to let all older, poor white women with mental health disabilities know that Yale will allow you to be terrorized in your isolated dorm room for months and not only do nothing about it, but also participate in your being terrorized in your own home. If you’re an older, disabled woman on Yale’s campus, Yale will allow you to be stalked as you walk across campus. If you’re an older, disabled woman on Yale’s campus, Yale will illegally feed your personal information to your attackers, including your mental health history. If you’re an older, disabled woman on Yale’s campus, Yale will allow you to be illegally recorded while you are standing in the threshold of your dorm room.

In conclusion, Yale should retract their Title VI Review Report as the complete and utter farce that it is.

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g

Why I Was a Social Pariah at Yale and Why the Yale Administration Was Trying to Expel Me for the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax YouTube Channel Video and Transcript

Below please find my Why I Was a Social Pariah at Yale and Why the Yale Administration Was Trying to Expel Me for the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax YouTube Channel Video and Transcript. Many persons have requested transcripts of my videos, and I will provide them here, especially the videos of my full, detailed account of what really happened during the now notorious Living or Napping While Black incident at Yale, which was actually a hate crime hoax, and the Yale Administration and the Yale Campus Police were complicit.

Here is the my Why I Was a Social Pariah at Yale and Why the Yale Administration Was Trying to Expel Me for the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax YouTube Channel Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7v-1h2C6Ls

Here is the transcript thereof:

Hi.  This is Sarah Braasch.  Welcome or welcome back to my channel.  

Today, I am going to talk about why I was a social pariah on campus at Yale, and why the Yale Administration was looking for any reason to expel me, and to destroy my life and discredit my work.  

I was widely despised on campus, including by the Yale Administration.  You’d think I’d be used to being socially ostracized, after having grown up in the misogynistic religious cult of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a cult from which I walked away at 17 with nothing and no one, but it was a very difficult time for me.  I ended up having to seek help at the Mental Health Clinic at the Student Health Center on Yale’s campus.  I was on psychotropic medication for the next couple of years, including anti-psychotic medication, a point of which much was made by my attackers and the Yale Administration, who illegally fed my personal information to my attackers.  

In the Spring of 2015, during my first year in the PhD Program in Philosophy at Yale, our department was undergoing a search for a tenure track Assistant Professor position. I actually hadn’t been much involved. 

I found out that some of the graduate students had been trolling online for dirt on the job candidates. Someone found some years old comments that one of the job candidates had made regarding homosexuality.  I believe that these comments were made on explicitly Christian community forums.  More or less, the comments expressed his adherence to Christian doctrine on all matters, which he understood to include Biblical scripture.  He then said that he understood Biblical scripture to include a prohibition on sodomy, which he understood as including a prohibition on homosexual sex.  That’s it. 

These years old online comments were interpreted as anti-LGBTQ hate speech by many of the graduate students.  They decided that they were going to wage a campaign to make sure that this particular job candidate (our only POC job candidate) would not, under any conditions, get the Assistant Professor job.  I tried to speak reason and common sense to them.  I told them that, arguably, they were part of the hiring process, and that they were wading into legally dangerous waters.  I told them that it is a violation of federal civil rights law to discriminate on the basis of religion, and that, arguably, this job candidate had done little more than express his adherence to Biblical scripture as Christian doctrine.  I told them that the university has a commitment to free speech and academic freedom, which they were arguably violating.  I told them that we’re talking about someone who had already spent years in academia teaching at an elite institution.  He has an established history of professional behavior.  I told them to speak with a trusted faculty member about their concerns, if they felt like they needed to do so, but to leave it to the faculty to handle it.  

I was immediately denounced as anti-LGBTQ.  My legal competence was disparaged.  My philosophical competence was disparaged.  My character was disparaged and maligned.  

Then, they stated that they were planning to disrupt the job candidate’s job talk with a protest with rainbow colored wigs and rainbow t-shirts and flags, etc.  

I put my foot down.  I said, in no uncertain terms, that I would not allow them to do this.  

I went to a trusted faculty member.  The other graduate students spoke to faculty.  Emails were sent.  At some point someone leaked the controversy to a popular philosophy blog.  

I was accused of having been the one to leak the information to the philosophy blog.  It wasn’t me.  I was trying to protect the reputation of the Philosophy Department and Yale.  I never would have done so.  

Department meetings were held.  People denied having done things and said things that they had done and said.  They tried to make this about me having done something wrong, me being anti-LGBTQ when I’m nothing of the sort, me having violated their privacy by leaking information to the philosophy blog when I had done nothing of the kind.  Then, we had a meeting with just the philosophy graduate students that ended with people crying (myself included) and people running out of the room, because I was allegedly making anti-LGBTQ statements (I wasn’t.).

There was another get together planned with just the graduate students to clear the air and to try to repair our community and move forward.  I had absolutely no intention of going.  I figured it would devolve into a Sarah bashing session.  A couple of the faculty members talked me into going. They assured me that the other graduate students were sincere in wanting to mend fences.  It was even worse than I had feared.  It was me sitting in the center of a circle while 20 or so graduate students took turns berating me and telling me how stupid and evil I am.  I stood firm to the end.  I tried, repeatedly, to explain my profound commitment to civil libertarianism and freedom of expression, including religious expression, despite my strident anti-religion views.  I was in tears and shaking by the end.  The graduate students stormed out of the room, leaving me there alone, devastated.  That was the last time most of them ever spoke to me.  

I immediately became persona non grata amongst the graduate students in the Philosophy Department and beyond.  For the next three years, most of the graduate students wouldn’t speak to me. They wouldn’t look at me except to glare at me.  They would literally get up and leave a room if I entered it.  

It was an incredibly difficult and painful time for me.  I struggled with the social ostracization.  

It wasn’t so much the social ostracization itself, because, as we all know, I’m quite used to being a social pariah, it was the prodigious disappointment.  

When I found out on the very last possible day, April 15th, 2014, that I had been accepted to Yale, I lied down on the floor in the fetal position and cried tears of joy and relief. I was beyond thrilled.  I had the highest expectations for my life and academic career after that point.  

And, to have all of those hopes and expectations dashed, to be a social outcast once more, to know that my Yale experience was going to be painful and difficult, when I had hoped for camaraderie and collegiality, was more than I could bear.  I was devastated.  I fell apart from the shock and the disappointment.  

I needed support, and I had no choice but to seek help at the Mental Health Clinic at the Student Health Center.  I was treated there for the next two years or so, including with the use of psychotropic and anti-psychotic medication.  I don’t think I would have been able to get thru the next couple of years without this assistance.  

I was also supported by the faculty.  They stood by me through the entire nightmare.  In the character letters that the faculty wrote on my behalf recently, after the latest debacle, they wrote that they hoped that they would have the same courage and integrity that I showed when similarly tested.  Nothing has made me prouder.  

I was later made aware that the graduate students had not been satisfied with merely socially ousting me from the department and making my life a living hell.  They wanted me expelled.  They went to the Administration.  This is what I was told.  

I was also made to believe that the only reason why I wasn’t disciplined is because, yet again, the faculty stood up for me.  

I am under no illusions about the fact that many of the graduate students were thrilled to see my life and career destroyed and to see me have to flee campus while being taunted by a mob.  I’m sure that nothing could have made them happier.  

I’m sure that many of the graduate students, those still at Yale and those who have moved on, encouraged the moral outrage mob, online or otherwise, fanning the outrage flames that burned my life to the ground.  

I am also under no illusions that the Administration was positively thrilled when I was accused of a racist hate crime this past Spring.  I believe that they jumped at the chance to publicly brand me a racist, thereby destroying my life and discrediting my work.  

After the nightmare that I have endured, if I had to do it all over again, would I stand up for the federal civil rights of our only POC job candidate?  Knowing how my life would be destroyed as a result?  

In a heartbeat.  I am a profoundly committed civil libertarian. I can only live a life of integrity. My commitment to free speech is principled.  Unless you stand up for everyone’s right to express themselves, even to express ideas with which you could not disagree more, then you don’t believe in free speech. 

This is why my more religious friends were the first ones to stand up for me.  This is why they stood by my side throughout this nightmare, despite my egregious anti religion rhetoric of the past.

They knew I would do it for them, in a heartbeat, without hesitation, no matter the personal cost.

Because they had seen me do it.  They had seen me risk my career, risk everything, to stand up for a stranger’s federal civil rights, including his freedom of religious expression rights.  

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g

Solving Lewis and Hart’s Problems with Normativity, Evolution, and Disagreement (Rough Draft – Future APA Submission of 3k Words)

This is my paper version of the talk I gave in August at Tufts for the International Social Ontology Conference. This is just a rough draft. This will be a future APA Conference submission of 3k words. Eventually, I’ll write a 9k words version to submit to journals.

Solving Lewis and Hart’s Problems with Normativity, Evolution, and Disagreement

Introduction

David Lewis and HLA Hart have very similar problems with their accounts of social conventions in Conventionand The Concept of Law, respectively.  They both want to capture an obligatory character of social conventions. They both see an obligation to comply as being an essential feature of social conventions.  They both think that the only way to capture this obligatory character is if there is a single rational thing to do in a situation that gives rise to a social convention, which is to conform as everyone else in one’s population conforms.  They both think that if there is a single rational thing to do, then you have something very closely akin to an obligation to do that one rational thing.  But, these Lewisian social conventions only arise in situations wherein everyone is particularly motivated to align their beliefs and expectations with one another and to coordinate their behavior and achieve unanimity of conformity.  The problem with Lewisian social conventions is that they must pop into and out of existence instantaneously, and they can neither evolve nor devolve over time. Nor do they allow for disagreement or dissent or pluralism.  This is the price that one must pay to capture the obligatory character of social conventions.  But, we know that social institutions evolve and devolve over time.  People disagree about what the law is and should be. And, despite this fluidity and pluralism, we still behave and speak as if there were a real obligation to follow the law and to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group.  

The first step to solving this problem is to adopt Margaret Gilbert’s brilliant insight that social conventions are social group constituting.  The fact that a population has a social convention constitutes that population as a social group for that reason, if for no other.  The second step is to recognize the role that practical authority plays.  This is the case, even for Lewisian social conventions, because of the risk dominance of the status quo position.  No one is going to conform to an alternate Lewisian social convention, unless she knows that her entire community is going to do likewise.  The worst possible outcome is for anyone to fail to coordinate. Practical authority solves this problem, because the authority makes it known how everyone in the social group will behave, allowing the social group to overcome the risk dominance of the status quo position and move between alternate Lewisian social conventions.  The third step is to recognize that all social conventions are step public social goods.  This is the case because the authority is a freeriding defector.  Now, we no longer require unanimity to generate normativity.  Once the step public social good of the social group itself has been generated, the social group rests upon an equilibrium point.  No one wants to defect, because the social group would collapse back to the status quo.  And, the authority has no incentive to conform, because she fares far better by continuing to defect.  Thus, there is a single rational thing to do in this situation, which is to continue to conform to the social convention.  Now that we no longer need unanimity to achieve normativity/obligation, we can have sub social groups within a larger social group with their own sub social conventions that wax and wane over time.  Thus, we can have evolution and disagreement.  And, we have solved Lewis and Hart’s problems.  

The Obligatory Character of Social Conventions?

Both David Lewis, in Convention, and HLA Hart, in The Concept of Law, are trying to capture what they construe as an essential feature of social conventions, namely, their obligatory character.  Hart wishes to capture a real obligation to comply with the law, and Lewis wishes to capture a real obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group.  Hart speaks to a legal system being a union of primary and secondary social rules, rather than conventions, precisely because he is intent on capturing the obligatory character of the legal rules that comprise a legal system, but he is in fact speaking of a union of primary and secondary social conventions.  This point of fact does not escape Hart.  He is neither invoking a mysterious supra-individual normative / obligatory character, nor one that emanates or arises from the aggregation of the intentions / agency of the individual social group members.  He knows that he has only the preferences, expectations, and actions of the individual social group members with which to work.  Neither Lewis nor Hart are under any illusions about this point.  Both Lewis and Hart are fully aware that they have only an individual instrumental (means-ends) rationality from which to generate something akin to an obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group.  As Margaret Gilbert would say, both Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts of social conventions are individualistic rather than holistic.  

But, this is also why Margaret Gilbert would say that both Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts of social conventions fail to capture the essential feature of obligatoriness.  Can there be a real obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group, particularly with respect to Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts thereof?  And, moreover, is there a real obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group, regardless of whether Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts thereof are able to capture this allegedly essential feature?  The simple answer is no; there is no real obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group, nor the law, for that matter.  There are no normative facts.  There is no fact of the matter about how people should reason; there is only how people do reason.  But, I’m far more interested in explaining why most people most of the time behave and speak as if there were an obligation.  An account of social conventions should capture whatever it is about social conventions that motivates most people most of the time to behave and speak as if there were an actual obligation to comply.  This something will be something closely akin to obligation, or, at least, normative character, or as close as Lewis and Hart can hope to get under the constraint of individual instrumental rationality. An account of social conventions like Gilbert’s, one that enshrines a real obligation into its social ontology, obscures whatever it is about human and social psychology that compels most people most of the time to behave and speak as if there were this real obligation to comply.  Both Hart and Lewis think that they are able to capture something closely akin to obligation, but they pay a heavy price for it.  The price they pay for it is only being able to give an account of what Margaret Gilbert calls Lewisian social conventions.  

The Obligatory Character of Lewisian Social Conventions

In “Social Convention Revisited,” Margaret Gilbert hews very closely to Hart’s understanding, in The Concept of Law,of what it means to have an obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group. You have an obligation to comply with your social group’s social conventions, if the other members of your social group are in a position to demand such compliance and sanction you for non-compliance.  But, if we’re only working with an individual instrumental rationality, then it doesn’t seem that we can have a real obligation.  Both Hart and Lewis seem to think that there can be something closely akin to a real obligation when there is a single rational thing to do in a situation that gives rise to a social convention, which is what everyone else in your social group is doing.  If there is a single rational thing to do, then you have something closely akin to an obligation, even in terms an individual instrumental rationality, to do that one rational thing.  And, if there is a single rational thing to do in a situation, then everyone in your social group has something closely akin to an obligation to do that one rational thing.

In The Concept of Law, Hart argues that this is what distinguishes social conventions (or rules, as he would put it, because there is an obligation to comply), from mere patterns of behavior, descriptive norms, and lesser social rules, such as rules of etiquette.  A social rule is a social rule, for Hart, because there is a real pressing need for everyone in the social group to conform thereto.  No unilateral deviation from the rule can be tolerated.  Everyone in the social group fares far worse if anyone deviates.  The only rational thing to do in the situation that gives rise to the social rule / Lewisian social convention is what everyone else in your social group is doing.  This is what places your social group members in a quasi-position of being justified in demanding your compliance and sanctioning you for non-compliance.  But, then, social conventions, Lewisian social conventions, only arise in situations wherein everyone in a population is particularly motivated to align their beliefs and expectations with one another and to coordinate their behavior to achieve unanimity of conformity.  

The text book example of a Lewisian social convention is driving on the right or left hand side of the road.  If everyone drives on the right hand side of the road, then no one wants anyone to drive on the left hand side of the road, and everyone fares very poorly (injury, property damage), if anyone drives on the left hand side of the road.  The only rational thing to do is to drive on the same side of the road as everyone else in one’s community.  This is what places all of the social group members in the quasi-position of being justified in demanding compliance and sanctioning for non-compliance. This is why there is something very closely akin to obligation in situations wherein Lewisian social conventions arise.  We can certainly appreciate why social group members would behave and speak as if there were a real obligation to comply with the Lewisian social convention of driving on the right hand side of the road.  

The Problem(s) with Lewisian Social Conventions

With respect to a situation that gives rise to a Lewisian social convention, the worst possible outcome is a failure, any failure to coordinate.  Lewis allows for merely negligible deviation.  No one wants anyone to deviate.  But, this entails some very unfortunate consequences with respect to Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts of social conventions.  Their accounts of social conventions are accounts of Lewisian social conventions.  And, Lewisian social conventions are severely constrained.  Lewisian social conventions must pop into and out of existence instantaneously.  Lewisian social conventions can neither evolve nor devolve over time.  Lewisian social conventions do not allow for disagreement or dissent or pluralism.  This is the price that one must pay to capture the obligatory character of social conventions.  If obligatory character demands unanimity of conformity at every moment, then social conventions that possess an obligatory character can never evolve or devolve over time.  There can be no disagreement about what the social convention is.  Ronald Dworkin famously offers a withering critique of Hart’s account of a legal system for just this reason.  Dworkin was actually quite brilliant to notice that Hart’s account of a legal system, because his legal system is a union of primary and secondary Lewisian social conventions, doesn’t allow for theoretical disagreement about what the law is or should be.  

Can We Modify Lewis’ Account of Social Conventions?

As Ronald Dworkin so brilliantly pointed out, we disagree about what the law is and should be.  Likewise, we have strong pre-theoretical intuitions that our social conventions evolve and devolve over time, waxing and waning, arising and collapsing, as quasi-rational individual agents pressure the evolution and devolution of their social groups’ social conventions.  And, despite this fluidity and pluralism, we still speak and behave (most of us; most of the time) as if there were a real obligation to follow the law and to comply with one’s social groups’ social conventions.  

So, both Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts of social conventions are terrifically and woefully inadequate. Both Lewis’ and Hart’s accounts of social conventions are merely accounts of Lewisian social conventions. Lewisian social conventions only capture one class of social conventions, social conventions with the highest degree of conventionality and the strongest normative (perhaps obligatory) character.  A “degree of conventionality” is Lewis’ term, but regardless of his circumspection, he still allows for merely negligible unilateral deviation.  He only allows for social conventions of the very highest degrees of conventionality to exist, i.e., Lewisian social conventions, because these are the only social conventions that may boast something closely akin to an essential feature of normative (and perhaps obligatory) character.  

Regardless of the inadequacies of Lewis’ account of social conventions, I still think there is so much that Lewis gets right about social conventions, including arbitrariness and common knowledge.  Contra Gilbert, I believe that individualistic accounts of social conventions are the only ones that avoid disqualification for being metaphysically suspect.  Lewis and Hart are both right to acknowledge that we only have the preferences, expectations, and actions of individual social group members with which to work. But, they are also both right to notice that most people most of the time behave and speak as if there were a real obligation to comply with the law and one’s social conventions.  They err in thinking that the only way to accommodate both essential features (normativity and unanimity in conformity) is for social conventions to only arise in situations in which there is but a single rational thing to do, which is what everyone else in one’s social group is doing. We want to capture normativity (and maybe even something closely akin to obligation) without demanding unanimity in conformity.  But, can we modify Lewis’s account of social conventions to capture evolution, disagreement, and pluralism, while also capturing something akin to normative (and perhaps obligatory) character?  I think we can fix Lewis’ account of social conventions.  

How to Fix Lewis’ Account of Social Conventions

We can modify Lewis’ account of social conventions to accommodate all of the different classes of social conventions, of varying degrees of conventionality.  And, at one and the same time, we can continue to capture the quasi-obligatory character that Lewis captures, i.e., we can retain the essential feature that there is but a single rational thing to do for someone party to a social convention, which is continue to conform to the social convention. Lewis takes himself to have captured as much of a quasi-obligatory character as he requires, if he is able to capture the fact that there is a single rational thing to do for someone party to a social convention, which is what everyone else in one’s social group is doing.  If there is a single rational thing to do, then Lewis takes it that you have something very closely akin to an obligation to do that one rational thing.  And, that’s as much as he requires, because this essential feature explains why most people most of the time behave and speak as if there were a real obligation to comply with the social conventions of one’s social group.  

How are we to go about modifying Lewis’ account of social conventions to allow for evolution and devolution whilst there being a single rational thing to do?  The first step is to adopt Margaret Gilbert’s brilliant insight that social conventions are social group constituting.  The fact that a population has a social convention constitutes that population as a social group for that very reason, if no other. The second step is to recognize the role that practical authority plays.  Practical authority makes it known how everyone in the social group will behave.  Ultimately, I am going to say that all social coordination requires practical authority. The third step is to recognize that all social conventions (and social groups) are step public social goods. This is the case because the authority is a freeriding defector.  Combining these 3 steps results in social group (and sub social group) constituting social conventions (institutions) that rest upon equilibrium points (meaning there is a single rational thing to do for one party to the convention, i.e., conform), but that can also evolve and devolve over time.  Thus, we have normative (and perhaps obligatory) character without requiring unanimity.  

Step One – Social Conventions are Social Group Constituting

I disagree with a great deal in Margaret Gilbert’s account of social conventions in “Social Convention Revisited,” BUT I think her insight that social conventions are social group constituting is absolutely brilliant.  The fact that a population has a social convention constitutes that population as a social group for that reason alone.  This is really important for my account.  When a population generates a social convention, the population generates a social group.  I refer to Gilbert’s account of social conventions (really social rules) as a paradigmatic wholly normative account of social conventions.  For her, the obligatory character of social conventions is the paramount essential feature, and she requires neither conformity, nor expectation of conformity, nor preference for conformity.  Gilbert is highly critical of Lewisian social conventions, which she refers to as individualistic, rather than holistic, and she argues that there can be no obligation to comply with Lewisian social conventions.  

Step Two – The Role that Practical Authority Plays

Social coordination requires practical authority.  I employ Raz’s definition of authority as the power to alter the protected reasons of someone else –a protected reason is a first order reason to do something and a second order reason to stop considering any alternate actions.

 This is the case, even for Lewisian social conventions, because of the risk dominance of the status quo position.  No one is going to conform to an alternate Lewisian social convention, unless she knows that her entire community is going to do likewise. The worst possible outcome is for anyone to fail to coordinate.  Practical authority solves this problem, because the authority makes it known how everyone in the social group will behave.  The conferral of authority upon someone is a secondary social convention that piggy backs on the primary coordination problem.  To avoid regress, authority is always assumed, then conferred, out of necessity, in order to solve the primary coordination problem.  I rely upon empirical social psychological work to bolster the claim that authority is always assumed, then conferred, out of necessity.  

Step Three – Social Conventions (and Social Groups) are Step Public Social Goods

An authority is a foresighted, risk tolerant individual.  Authorities do not always arise in populations, even when we need them. Sometimes coordination problems go unsolved.

When an authority does arise, it is because someone was able to see that it was in her long term interest to communicate an instruction to a population, at a cost, in order to reap the position of being an authority in a social group –someone who is a freeriding defector and not actually a party to the social convention, leaving her open to moving the social group to alternate social conventions.  This is why social conventions are step public social goods.  The social group rests upon an equilibrium point immediately upon generating the social group via the social group constituting social convention.  There is a single rational thing for the parties to the social convention to do, which is to continue to conform.  The authority has no incentive to do anything other than continue to defect.  Thus, we can have normative (and perhaps obligatory) character sans unanimity.  It is at least rational, if not obligatory, to affirm your social identity by continuing to confer power upon the authorities in your social group.  

Conclusion – We Fixed Lewis and Hart’s Problems with Normativity, Evolution, and Disagreement

Now that we have an account of social conventions that recognizes that social conventions are social group constituting step public social goods (wherein the social group is itself a social good generated, even if there are others) including freeriding defector-authorities with the power to move the social group amongst alternate social conventions (providing arbitrariness and common knowledge).  Now, we can have normative (and perhaps a quasi-obligatory) character sans unanimity.  There is a single rational thing to do, which is to continue to conform to the social convention, if you are a party thereto.  If we have normative (and perhaps a quasi-obligatory) character sans unanimity, we can have social groups and sub social groups evolving and devolving over time (growing and subsiding), along with disagreement and pluralism.

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g

I am the Victim of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale YouTube Channel Video and Transcript

Below please find my I am the Victim of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale YouTube Channel Video and Transcript. Many persons have requested transcripts of my videos, and I will provide them here, especially the videos of my full, detailed account of what really happened during the now notorious Living or Napping While Black incident at Yale, which was actually a hate crime hoax, and the Yale Administration and the Yale Campus Police were complicit.

Here is the my I am the Victim of the Living or Napping While Black Hate Crime Hoax at Yale YouTube Channel Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q377OTahss

Here is the transcript thereof:

Hi.  This is Sarah Braasch.  Welcome or welcome back to my channel.  

In the wake of the Jussie Smollett and Covington Catholic school kids maelstrom, I want to talk about whether I’m a victim of a hate crime hoax.  Yes, I am one of many victims of the Living While Black movement, or, as I like to refer to it, The Great Racist Scare of 2018, but was what was done to me an actual hate crime hoax?

I am going to say, definitively, yes, I am a victim of a hate crime hoax.  

This is made perfectly clear by the letter that my attackers say they wrote in response to the February 24th, 2018 incident.  (I am convinced that they wrote a letter after the February 24thincident; I’m not convinced that the letter which was later released to the public is the actual text of the letter that was written back in February.)

But, anyway, in this letter, which they released to the public, my attackers accuse me of having perpetrated an act of violence on the evening of February 24ththat is comparable to a lynching.  (It has been in the news as of late that there is an effort to make lynching a federal hate crime.)

I was not made aware of what it was that I was being accused of having said or done that was racist until sometime in June, 2018.  Imagine my shock to discover that I had been accused of having perpetrated an act of violence that is comparable to a lynching.  

Let me just pause for a moment to remind everyone what it is that I actually did on the evening of February 24th, 2018, that is now being construed as an act of violence that is comparable to a lynching.  I took reasonable precautions to make sure that I was able to enter my isolated dorm room safely.  I asked a man who had seemed to have followed me up to my isolated dorm room to leave, because he did not appear to have authorization to be there.  I called the non emergency helpline of the Yale campus police, and the first thing I said to them was, “I’m not sure if I really need your assistance or no.”  And, they told me that they would send someone by, just in case, just to make sure that everything is ok.  

That’s it.  That’s what I did on the evening of February 24th, 2018, that is now being construed as an act of violence comparable to a lynching.  And, I just want to remind everyone that I am the person who was terrorized in my own home on the evening of February 24th, 2018.  I was trapped in my dorm room for hours, terrified to leave.  

I am a severely traumatized, middle aged woman with mental health disabilities who was simply taking reasonable precautions to ensure that I was able to enter my isolated dorm room safely, my isolated dorm room where I live like a hermit and toil on my dissertation in obscurity.  

That’s where we’re at as a society.  That’s what counts as a lynching on today’s college campuses by the Far Left ideological fascists and intersectional feminists.  

The point being, when my attackers went to Michelle Nearon, the Yale Graduate School Dean of Development and Diversity, they wanted her to understand that I had perpetrated a hate crime. And, the Yale Deans certainly treated me, without any due process whatoever, as if I were guilty of having perpetrated a hate crime.  

When my attackers released this text to the public, they wanted the public to understand that I had perpetrated a hate crime.  And, the public, overwhelmingly, understood their accusation as such.  I was deluged with death threats and threats of violence, including sexual violence, that explicitly stated that I should be murdered, thrown in prison, and lose my career and my livelihood and my reputation, because I had perpetrated a hate crime comparable to a lynching.  

Ok.  But, maybe my attackers were being sincere.  Maybe they really thought that I had perpetrated a hate crime, a racially motivated act of violence comparable to a lynching.

That, in and of itself, is an extraordinary indictment of the intersectional feminism and Far Left ideological fascism overwhelming today’s college campuses.

But, let’s consider that position for a moment.  It seems that you can’t properly call a hate crime accusation a hoax, if the accusers are being sincere, right?

You can even consider what occurred on May 8th, 2018, when I was illegally recorded in the threshold of my dorm room, a staged trap.  (It was a staged trap.)  But, you might still think that my attackers were being sincere in the sense that they were trying to trap me in the act of perpetrating a hate crime, a racially motivated act of violence comparable to a lynching.  

There are several (or many) problems with this claim.  

First – the account by my attackers of what occurred on February 24th, 2018, in the text that they released to the public, is an incoherent fabrication from beginning to end.  Literally nothing that they said happened actually happened.  

The man who made numerous television appearances says that I invited him into the elevator.  This is clearly a lie.  They said this because they didn’t want to have to say that he followed me up to my isolated dorm room or that he had gained unauthorized access to the 12thfloor of the Hall of Graduate Studies, which he did.  

But, then, this still makes no sense, because what kind of self-respecting racist hate crime perpetrator invites their victim to accompany them up to their isolated dorm room? And, then they say that I called him an intruder.  Well, he’s not an intruder if I invited him to accompany me, is he?  Are they saying that I did this, intending all along to call the Yale campus police on him?  Their entire scenario literally makes no sense.  

Second – the Yale Housing Managers investigated what occurred on February 24th. When I met with the Yale Housing Managers, they told me that I had done absolutely nothing wrong.  They told me that I was the only person involved who had done nothing wrong.  They told me that they would deal with all of the other persons involved, including whomever had terrorized me in my dorm room that evening, and they told me that they intended to discipline the Resident Coordinators for the way that they had handled the situation.

I can only assume that my attackers went to the Yale Deans to accuse me of having perpetrated an act of violence comparable to a lynching, because they were upset with the decision of the Yale Housing Managers.

They didn’t accuse me of having perpetrated a hate crime, because they believed that I had actually perpetrated a hate crime.  

I believe that they 1 – were trying to get revenge against me for having phoned the Yale campus police. And, 2 – they were trying to deflect blame from themselves for their own wrongdoing.  (I also believe that jealousy on the part of the woman who made numerous television appearances played no small part in her decision to accuse me of having perpetrated a hate crime.)

Moreover, consider what occurred on May 8th, 2018.  I called the non emergency helpline of the Yale campus police on the morning of May 8th, because I encountered someone who made statements to me that made it clear to me that she was very likely one of the persons who had been terrorizing me in my isolated dorm room that evening and for months.  

What statements did she make?  She indicated that she knew that I was the lady who had called the cops on that party – referring to February 24th.  

My attackers staged a trap for me on May 8th, not to actually catch me perpetrating an actual hate crime, but to get revenge against me for a delusional, jealous, and obsessive personal vendetta.  

Additionally, consider how the numerous television and media appearances and statements must have been pre-planned.  They happened within hours or a day or two of the May 8thincident.   I started receiving twitter emails from Shaun King and other moral outrage warriors of the moral outrage industry within hours of the May 8thincident.

I don’t think it’s hyperbole to construe what my attackers did as a full blown, immediate, and pre-planned media blitz.  I’ll bet most hate crime victims wish they could preplan for their follow up media appearances in this way.  

And, this is why I consider myself a victim of a hate crime hoax.  

I also want to make the point that when the intersectional feminists, including Roxane Gay, continue to cast me as a violent, dangerous, and threatening psychotic, and continue to call me racist, because they don’t want to admit that they defamed me and participated in the destruction of my life, they are perpetuating this hate crime hoax.  

I think that other victims of the Living While Black movement may also be victims of actual hate crime hoaxes.  But, we would have to consider the ad hoc circumstances of the frauds.  

If you wish to support me, as I seek justice, it would mean the world to me. Here are my PayPalMe and GoFundMe links. 

PayPalMe:  https://www.paypal.me/SarahBraasch

GoFundMe:  https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

You can follow me on twitter here:  https://twitter.com/sarahbraasch1?lang=en

Please subscribe to my YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4xV2R6mTVJhAu9OQzwp5g