Talk:Peter Ludlow

Rutgers
His job offer at Rutgers was rescinded. Please delete this sentence: "He has just[when?] accepted a position at Rutgers University's Center for Cognitive Science (RUCCS)."

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/northwestern-professor-accused-of-sex-assault-wont-join-rutgers-faculty/81079

Removed
I took the following out:

"In addition to his "formal" education, Ludlow has received extensive philosophical instruction from University of Michigan graduate student, Dustin Locke. He also owes his macking skills, what little there be, to Mr. Locke's teachings."

Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off
Jason, knock off the prank postings. It's beneath you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.25.106 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2006

Source
MC Allers. [source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mcallers/cv.html] stop editing out the non-pranks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.52.126 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2006

Also, by unpopular, I mean relative to the popular books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.52.126 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2006

Delete
Also, who the hell is this guy, and why would I just happen to read about him one day if I choose a random page? He is an average circle-jerker who thinks SL is SRS BSNS. Get rid of this waste of space, I beg you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.98.85 (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2007

One of the most 10 influential? Give me a break, no one has ever heard of him outside his local home town. What he does do, on Second Life Herald, is encourage drama, defamation and libel, from right wing fascist rabid mouth foaming bigots, which is the next thing Reporters Sans Frontières should look at. He is one sick puppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.101.99 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Delete Why does this article exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.232.90 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding and grad student right? He's not only a hacktivist, but visionary, artistic, and rigorously creative and influential in his philosophy. As for going out for drinks with a 17 year old -- probably imprudent -- yes. But this idea that younger female of older male professors are predated by the profs. Well, I can say for myself: I am a female, fell in love with philosophy and the prof, seduced him, yup, I sure did, and we were together 7 years. In seduced 2 separate previous profs of mine over the years, and even a good feminist friend was of the opinion that he was not dominating me. In fact, he was more in danger of that than I was. As for the other woman, a graduate student, which at that point, the lines get blurry, were in a mutual relationship. And, rather disgustingly to me, the left put all of their text messages on the web. I haven't read them I refuse to. However, a good friend, who did. In fact, the left wingers in philosophy essentially decided the case without even knowing the facts. PHILOSOPHERS, who should know better. And the guy had his whole life taken away from him. Shouldn't (a) the legal system make the call, and (b)shouldn't the punishment fit the crime. Now you want to talk about a male prof is a predator. Let's have a chat about Robert May, who spends his time chasing women around conferences, and pressuring them to death (I know, since he did it to me as a grad student)for sex. It's rather obvious. Now THAT guy is a creep who should not be teaching younger female students. But for whatever reason he gets away it and blatantly? But that doesn't mean he should have his life destroyed either. This new MacKinnonism going around one of controversial opinions about men and women is flat-footed and stupid. She thinks healthy sex can't even be had. Now come on. Get real. And getting a pinch on the ass is now treated as the same as being grabbed at 12 and carried into a bedroom and raped. As that victim that's rather insulting to me. And what's this with 2 stupid college students having sex but it follows that the guy raped her? Neither of them knew wtf they were doing. And what the men that are being nearly hung from the rafters for they at a time when no one knew better (I'm now referring to harassment and pinches in the ass) are the treated as the same? And philosophers actually believe this shit? Like really? That makes me embarrassed for profession. And yes he lost a job over it because of those on the left in philosophy, having already decided the case, conspired to convince Rutgers that they couldn't hire him.2604:6000:75C1:4500:3142:EC6D:1667:4F4A (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy
This has become a glaring omission. As the Chicago Tribune reported, Northwestern found that Peter Ludlow "engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate advances" with a 17 year old student. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-23/news/ct-northwestern-lawsuit-met-20140223_1_student-northwestern-professor-university-administrators. [BLP violation redacted] More serious allegations are currently controversial, as are allegations from the other women who have come forward, but these facts are not. (HOW!?)69.125.57.217 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Before an edit was ensues I suggest that interested editors first discuss any editions concerning the sexual assault allegations against Ludlow on this page. As it stands I don't see why these allegations require the comparatively detailed account currently in the article. I think it's most appropriate to mention that he currently faces allegations but no legal charges. Anything else risks being speculative, prurient, or uncited. Catfax 04:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed this paragraph from the lead for two reasons. Firstly, the allegations are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and therefore should not be in the lead. Secondly, the sources describe a lawsuit against the school - not the subject. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair move to me. The allegations however are important to Ludlow's current status as a professional academic philosopher and are currently the subject of a lot of conversation about Ludlow.  This seems like enough to warrant a mention in the article, even if it's not in the lead.  Do you think a new section ought to be made for this?  I'm inclined to say 'no,' because (as you say) Ludlow faces no pending legal investigation or censure.  Perhaps it could be included in another section?  My chief worries about adding this material are that (a) Wikipedia remains current and doesn't avoid controversial topics and (b) Wikipedia does not promote a stance on the ongoing legal proceedings.  These are important but delicate issues. Catfax 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)
 * As per WP:BLPCRIME I do not believe it should be included. You say there is a lot of conversation about the issue, but reliable sources do not support that position. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I added the paragraph Flatout deleted. He had good points. I don't want to add it back to avoid a cycle, but the issue of Ludlow's sexual harassment of a student is becoming national news. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/2014/02/northwestern_university_found_professor_peter_ludlow_violated_the_sexual.html This article was published last night. Sasmon (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok we need to be very very careful here not to breach WP:BLP. Slate.com doesn't seem to be "national news" and I can't find anything in the link above to support the allegation made in the above comment. The article only says that the university found that the professor had breach a code and that he was disciplined. We can not read more into the story than what is written in the article. I think we are close to the line and some edit summaries and might need to be redacted. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * His allegations are very relevant to the field of philosophy, where he teaches and works. It's been covered extensively by philosophy blogs followed by many professors, and both northwestern and rutgers have begun to comment on it. I think you're doing wikipedia a diservice by not mentioning the punishments the university gave to him. He may not have been convicted of a crime, but the university did rule that he had breached their ethical standards/title IX and punished him accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.149.89 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to say only what reliable sources actually say- do not add words, terms, inferences that mean something else. Blogs are not reliable sources. Slate.com may be a reliable source but it does not support your claims. See you talk page. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * [Redacted redundant duplicate of text above, at least part of which was an infringement of WP:BLP.]


 * The information has so far been excluded because the clams made were not supported by reliable sources and were in breach of WP:BLP. The Chicago Tribune source is helpful and my response and proposal for a pragraph to be added to the article are at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard for discussion. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment my propsed entry has been removed, and correctly so, for breaching WP:BLP. There are no charges, no convictions and as per WP:BLPCRIME I agree that this is an area best left out at present. No other editors bothered to enter into the discussion at WP:BLPN so I have proposed the discussion be closed. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   00:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think some reference to this issue is needed. Our article loses credibility by omitting it.  People who want to know about it will go elsewhere when they find nothing here, and the other places they go might be rather sensationalist.  Better to have a restrained, careful entry here; no particular details are needed, just a brief outline.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take care
I have reverted the last 3 edits and will ask an admin to redact edit summaries. As per WP:BLP "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."

Please note that it is not sufficient that someone has made allegations in a lawsuit, and quite rightly so, since in most countries anyone can start a law suit and allege anything they like, with or without good evidence. Please read the discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard before seeking to reinstate controversial information about a living person. Thanks ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   23:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014
The Rutgers offer mentioned in the article has been called into question: http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-15/news/47339462_1_rutgers-spokesman-rutgers-university-rutgers-offer

188.22.179.124 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014
This information is no longer accurate: "He has just[when?] accepted a position at Rutgers University's Center for Cognitive Science (RUCCS)". check out http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/07/02/campus/ludlow-will-not-join-rutgers-faculty/

142.68.151.134 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Removed. Stickee (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 3 November 2015
Ludlow has resigned from Northwestern University due to the initiation of proceedings to terminate his employment by the University. The article should be edited to reflect these changes of employment, and should also include some sort of controversy section regarding the 2014 sexual harassment allegations.

Suggested text, replacing line 1:

"Peter Ludlow (born January 16, 1957), who also writes under the pseudonym Urizenus Sklar, is a professor of philosophy at Northwestern University." replaced by

"Peter Ludlow (born January 16, 1957), who also writes under the pseudonym Urizenus Sklar, was a professor of philosophy at Northwestern University. Ludlow resigned from his position in November 2015 amid allegations of the sexual harassment of students in March 2014. Ludlow's resignation came about as the allegations were under investigation by a faculty committee in order to begin termination proceedings.

Breadwords (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Lead amended by another editor to include this information. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

sexual harassment
1. Ludlow was found to have sexually harassed two students, not just faced "criticism that he had had a consensual relationship with a female student". I made a reference to an official Nortwestern source that confirms this. 2. There is no reason not to mention this in the intro. 3. The user who deleted this information from the intro because it is "mentioned below" is disingenuous, because he also deleted it from below. This is a clear whitewashing attempt. Hans Mayer (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Controversies section isn't quite accurate. Ludlow was accused of sexually assaulting two students, but the Northwestern finding was one of harassment, not assault. 2001:569:7A37:D900:69DD:36A6:1928:D6A5 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Northwestern concluded then that Ludlow made 'unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances'." That's assault. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * While sexual harassment certainly can rise to the level of assault, it is in no way equivalent to "sexual" assault. I refer interested editors to Wikipedia's own page defining sexual assault. Wiki100808 (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Ludlow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509135833/http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ruccs/ to http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ruccs/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526130221/http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/12/12/sims_online_newspaper/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/12/12/sims_online_newspaper/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to Unknown and What Really Went Down
You've got to be kidding and a grad student right? He's not only a hacktivist, but visionary, artistic, and rigorously creative and influential in his philosophy. As for going out for drinks with a 17 year old -- probably imprudent -- yes. But this idea that younger female students of older male professors are predated by the profs. Well, I can say for myself: I am a female, fell in love with philosophy and the prof, seduced him, yup, I sure did, and we were together 7 years. In fact, I seduced 2 separate previous profs of mine over the years, and even a good feminist friend who was really good, certainly did not agree or was even worried that I was a victim of a predator. In fact, he was more in danger of that than I was. As for the other woman, a graduate student, which at that point, the lines get blurry, were in a mutual relationship. And, rather disgustingly to me, the left put all of their text messages on the web. I haven't read them I refuse to. However, a good friend, did -- that is why I know that it was mutual relationship. The left wingers in philosophy essentially decided the case themselves in their court of public opinion. Destroyed his life prior even to the facts being settled -- PHILOSOPHERS, who should know better. Shouldn't (a) the legal system make the call? And (b)shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Now you want to talk about a male prof who is a predator. Let's have a chat about Robert May, who spends his time chasing women around conferences, and pressuring them to death (I know, since he did it to me as a grad student)for sex. It's rather obvious. Now THAT guy is a creep who should not be teaching younger female students. But for whatever reason he gets away it and blatantly? But that doesn't mean he should have his life destroyed either. This new MacKinnonism going around one of the controversial opinions about men and women concerning sexual relations is flat-footed and stupid. She thinks healthy sex can't even be had. Now come on. Get real. And getting a pinch on the ass is now treated as the same as being grabbed at 12 and carried into a bedroom and raped. As that victim, that's rather insulting to me. And what's this with 2 stupid college students having sex but it follows that the guy raped her? Neither of them knew wtf they were doing. And what about the men that are being nearly hung from the rafters for doing something that at that time, no one knew better (I'm now referring to harassment and pinches on the ass). This is not the same as being raped. I know. And you know who's deciding this enthusiastic consent stuff(god how boring would sex get then with the same person after 10 years?)? White, upper middle class academic feminists. 25%? The studies I've read, just dismiss any student's assertion that they simply handled it and it was no big deal are excluded from the data, or are treated as victims of false consciousness. And philosophers actually believe this shit? Like really? That makes me embarrassed for profession. And yes he did not go to Rutgers because of Matt Drabek and Rebecca Kukla conspiring to send letters to the Dept demanding that they not hire him(who couldn't argue her way out of wet paper bag (10 areas of specialization. Come on. I know, because I went head to head with her. Her opinion was that because the facebook group was designated private that it was OK to slander someone to a potential employer. Nevermind that much of it should have been deemed part of his private life or should have been and at least in NY that's employment discrimination).I still think Rutgers should have more balls. But there's a really good guy they hired anyway Paul Pietroski who also deserves it.67.240.163.34 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)