Frat antics aren’t particularly known for their sensitivity.
This week, a YouTube clip of a Yale University Delta Kappa Epsilon pledging ritual went viral on campus. Posted Wednesday night, immediately after the events took place, the video documents the DKE pledges marching blindfolded on Old Campus—home to the majority of Yale’s freshman women—shouting chants such as “No means yes, yes means anal” and “Fucking sluts.”
The Yale Women’s Center responded in a statement to the Yale Daily News:
This action by DKE has made public that they see rape as a joke or, worse, something they support. That these calls may have been made in jest should not distract from the fact that they incite violence.
On Thursday, DKE president Jordan Forney made a public apology, calling the chants “inappropriate, disrespectful, and very hurtful to others.” He said the stunt was “a lapse in judgment” and “in poor taste.”
Is this statement enough? Broad Recognition, a Yale feminist publication, urged students Thursday to demand administrative action against the fraternity, whose actions it called “fear-mongering” and “a call to violence.”
“Yale women are not new to fraternity misogyny, nor are we a stranger to our administration sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing about it,” the writer of the article, Hannah Zeavin, told the Good Men Project.
Other students think the reaction is overblown. “These chants are not dangerous,” said a comment on the Daily News story.
Do the frat’s actions merit university discipline? More importantly, will a slap on the wrist—which is more likely to occur—do anything to prevent future demonstrations of frat-sanctioned misogyny?
About Cooper Fleishman
If “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means “Anal,” then they’re really proclaiming themselves — these boiz with the DKE — available for sexual encounters with other men. Aren’t they? All they’re doing is letting the females know they are not available, right? Isn’t that what the chant really means? Sounds like it to me. So everyone’s really just being homophobic and not letting these new gay kids express themselves in a manner befitting their lifestyle. I say let the poor little dears be and let’s go find them some nice gay biker boiz to have fun with. Then they can find out the true meaning of “No means yes.”
Of course…it could also just be a case of idiots being idiotic. But that’s so…so…so typical of a fraternity, I hate to hang the label of uninspired about their charming little necks.
If I were a woman on campus hearing that shouted chant from a group of male students, I would be terrified. If Yale doesn’t call it out, it’s condoning it. Really terrible stuff.
What jerks! But any slap on the wrist by the administration isn’t going to do much. Maybe their Pan-Hellenic can blacklist the DKEs for the year (or four), and the DKEs can explain to their new pledges why the brothers wouldn’t want to party with those fucking sluts anyhow.
The clear-and-present-danger doctrine is a freedom of speech doctrine first announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919), during a controversial period in U.S. history when the First Amendment often clashed with the government’s interest in maintaining order and morale during wartime. Various formulations of the doctrine have appeared in other significant Supreme Court decisions throughout the years.
The Supreme Court has been using this test since the 1920s to determine when it is appropriate to bridge the right of free speech. The test has been used most often during war times, but in the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio, it was used to limit the speech of a KKK member who was “calling for violence.” Note that he did not commit any physically violent act. The standard set by the Supreme Court for judging when freedom of speech may lawfully be limited was set by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., illustrated the point by arguing that no one has a constitutional right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire is present, for such action would pose a “clear and present danger” to public safety.
So. There is indeed a LEGAL limit to speech. You can take it to the big SP, but they have yet to rule against a “clear and present” danger claim.
Interesting point.
Daddy Files?…
University censure or no, let’s see what plays out on campus this year.
If any of these tool boxes get laid, if any woman on campus will go near them, then we know that a) this incident didn’t mean that much, and that, b) Yale women have too little self respect.
Whether they get laid or not has nothing to do with whether this incident matters.
a) getting laid says nothing about whether you are a good person
b) women are not prizes for good behavior or a measure of worth, please don’t talk about us as if we are
c) why are you shifting the point of disgust away from these frat boys and onto women who might sleep with them?
Three good points.
Michael?…
Exactly, people should never be treated as commodities.
I am dismayed about the lack of discussion surrounding this event outside of this small circle. These are men of privilege. They are expressing a sense of entitlement to their own sexual gratification and the violent exercise of power over women–or anybody else–who happens to be in their sights. This is the frat that brought us G.W. Bush. These are the future leaders of America. I think Daddy Files’s wife is right. This is a teachable moment. Yale is an educational facility. As such, Yale has a responsibility to TEACH these men that advocating sexual violence against another is neither appropriate, nor acceptable. This discussion is very timely given the current events with bullying and intolerance against members of the gay community.
I am not a teacher, and I do not know the best means of education. Rewards and punishments have worked in the past. It seems to me that punishments are in order.
I see a bunch of college-aged men marching around, gleefully mocking the “Take Back the Night” anti-rape events with chanted threats of rape. How can people not thing think this is a problem?
Yes, it was hateful, ignorant, horrible, etc. etc. and arguably inciting violence. However, two things I noticed missing (thru about half the posts as of Oct 16 9:01am):
1. This is a leaked video from a private gathering.
2. Maybe we should also be questioning, as, say, feminists, whether or not corporations (and yes, that’s what Yale is) should be empowered to regulate the speech of its members on its premises. I suppose we should reimpose mandatory uniforms to complement our 21st century surveillance cameras that increasingly cover our every movement within “Yale’s” space?
1. It may or may not be a “leaked” video. It sure the hell was NOT a private gathering. It was a public display on an open campus common area. Video of the march may have been taken by any number of the campus employees, residents or visitors.
2. While the administration may be corporate members, the student body is not. See the Yale Corporation organizational chart: http://www.yale.edu/oir/open/pdf_public/W102_Org_Chart.pdf Regardless, I’m sure that the acceptance of an offer to study at Yale and the payment of tuition constitute an acceptance of whatever campus rules and regulations are in place at the time the contract is negotiated.
As to the rest of your second point, I don’t think I understand the relevance of your reference to uniforms and surveillance cameras. Nor do I understand how the implementation of either one would have effected anything which gave rise to the situation at hand.
(tried to post this several times, think it didn’t post b/c of an ACLU link, so here it is w/out it)
1. Students are not EMPLOYEES of the corporation. They are still members, and it is being stated that as members, they are subjected to different legal rules and regulations pertaining to free speech.
2. Let’s say that members of a Yale anti-immigration group showed up to East Haven and countered a pro-immigration group. Let us say that they held up signs that were borderline white supremacist and certainly anti-immigrant, arguably inciting violence. Deplorable as their message is, should they be allowed to organize and express their views?
I just don’t understand all of this. The reference to dress codes is, who gets the power to decide how we express ourselves and what we can say? Yale? Why? Their rules are dominated by the board of trustees, and there is little to no democracy in the process. According to them, the market will ensure just conduct, less they lose students to another university.
I’m not raising this to defend the actions of the students, but just to point out the pros and cons of certain rules and regulations. Campuses have recently been hotbeds of an array of police state measures, from extensive surveillance (with cameras and network monitoring) to tasing students, who “agree to the terms in their contract.”
I think the ACLU makes a good statement about how we should handle these kinds of things on campuses.
GOOGLE: ACLU hate speech campus
This is sexual harrassment. These men are outside the Yale women’s centre calling female students sluts and threatening sexual violence against them. Their speech constitutes sexual harrassment of all female students at the university. Public and private institutions have a duty of care to protect their members, employees, students etc. from sexual harrassment. Therefore these men need to be punished. Failure to do so would be discriminatory to their female students.
As someone mentioned earlier, the inability of some men to see this as anything but an offensive, bad taste joke is due to male privilege. These men can brush it aside because it’s very unlikely to effect them in a real way. This is unfortunately not the case for women who are much more likely to be the victims of sexual assault. There are documented instances of men packs in in very public settings who have quickly turned on women and committed group sexual assaults against them. Women have every reason to feel threatened, intimidated and fearful of such a public act of aggression and assertion of male power. As for free speech, the very reason that it’s protected is because words have tremendous power. It’s very convenient and disengenuous to say ‘just a joke’ when you’re not on the receiving end of that power.
It looks to me like the participants may have violated Connecticut’s Bias laws. According to the Connecticut Office of Legal Research it appears to be a Second Degree criminal violation and a Class D felony if convicted. Here’s the link to a law report which spells it out pretty clearly:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0276.htm
This would in no way constitute a Class D felony.
The person(s) would have to:
1. Make physical contact (they didn’t)
2. Damage, destroy, or deface property (they didn’t, to my knowledge)
3. Threaten these things AND THE VICTIM HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE WILL CARRY OUT THE THREAT.
This means the plaintiff (i.e., the victim) must prove to the courts that they have reasonable cause to believe that specific person(s) X will carry out the threat. Who is the plaintiff? Any person on campus? Any girl on campus? Which boy(s)? All of them? Simply because of this march and this march alone?
If that’s the case, this would get laughed out of the courts. Show me a similar case where the courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiff on such kind evidence. It’s a joke.
Read it carefully. I think it could even be argued to fall under First Degree crime of bias, a Class C felony. These are the elements of 2nd Degree Bias under Connecticut law:
A person commits the second degree crime if he acts maliciously and intends to intimidate or harass someone because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression if he (point 3) threatens to either (point 1) make physical contact (i.e., “no means yes”–’You say no to sex with me, I will make you have sex with me.’ That’s an EXPLICIT threat of physical contact if you deny the chanter sex. I agree that the second element of damage to property does not apply.
That brings us to the remainder of the language in the 3rd point: “and the victim has reasonable cause to believe he will carry out the threat”. This means that the victim(s) of the threat must have reasonable cause to believe he will carry out the threat. The plaintiff is any person on campus who directly hears, and correspondingly feels threatened by, the remarks. The legal standard brought by the language of this legislation is that of the doctrine of reasonableness, or reasonable cause.
Is it reasonable for an 18-22 year old female (or any other person, for that matter–but these chants were specifically targeting an audience of Yale frosh women, i.e. “I f— dead WOMEN,” “f—ing SLUTS”) to feel threatened by a very likely drunken mob of more than 20 exuberant men marching in her immediate vicinity under cover of darkness and chanting about hurting her?
These are men who are apparently willing to do ANY STUPID THING necessary to please their frat brothers. Tell me, why would a woman who has never before encountered these men, who has no basis upon which to form an opinion about their intention apart from the words and actions that she is viewing at that instant, think that they are willing to do anything BUT what they are saying??
Any girl who witnessed any chanter could feel threatened by those acts. It only takes one to commit rape. I did not witness the event first hand, but I feel thoroughly threatened by their acts. The act of marching in itself is meaningless. The CHANT, on the other hand, is quite purposeful and meaningful. It was meant to intimidate women.
I say again what I have said before: Men who do not take rape, the threat of rape, or making light of rape seriously do so because they are coming from a position of PRIVILEGE. The only way men will be able to grasp the threat that is implicit in this behavior is to understand what it feels like to be victimized by somebody in a higher position of power. Think race theory and apply it to gender inequality. If you don’t understand, READ about it until you do.
Again, stupid – yes. Disgusting, perhaps to many. If you want to go to race, immigrants could also feel threatened by anti-immigrant, pro-white (ie, white supremacist) marchers.
The law doesn’t work the way you are reading it (and for good reason). If you really believe it does, find precedent.
Sure, I can do that. I’ll call this group tomorrow and discuss the case with them.
…”[T]he Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) Hate Crimes Project…both records hate incidents and advocates for victims as well. They can be contacted at (860) 247-6090 or Toll-Free (800) 479-2949.”
Or, you could do it too if you’re really interested.
This is sad beyond words for so many different reasons. But you know who this sort of thing both terrifies and incites violence from the most?
Fathers who have daughters.
While I plan on teaching my daughter respect and tolerance, I also plan on showing her the results of passivity in the face of oppression in any form. It’s true that Gandhi didn’t physically fight back, but he always fought.
I’m not Gandhi and I can’t even post what I would do if my daughter was of age and someone spoke these words to her. Actually by then she’ll be trained in kickboxing and aikido amongst other defensive (UL) skills so she can tend to such matters herself. Then, while other people debate whether something could be proven in court as “justifiable cause” she can just deal with it how she sees fit based off her personal reaction and the circumstances of the situation.
But the bigger truth is that most of us actually live in a world that is often violent and terrifying.
Change comes about when enough people demand it and see to it that it occurs. It doesn’t come from doing nothing or speculating on matters requiring change.
People have been punishing people for more years than these hooligans can probably count and it hasn’t changed a damn thing.
These kids are what? 18-20 years old physically (not mentally obviously)?
Punishment is not what’s needed.
Responsibility is what is needed.
Saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t cut it.
Future leaders of America someone above said? HA! Not a chance.
In today’s day and age of instant access information these boys have screwed any hope of a political future. After all your political campaign doesn’t really sustain well when an opponent publishes a youtube clip showing you chanting this sort of stuff. And I highly doubt the female voters are going to buy “I was drunk, young and stupid.”
However they might accept “I was drunk, young and stupid and in seeing the errors of my ways I went and did an entire semester of volunteer work cleaning the floors and taking the trash out at the local women’s rape crisis center. I also championed an on an campus ethics and values campaign and got most of the other boys involved to do the same. ” or something similar. You know…responsibility.
Parents who have daughters attending the school should put pressure on Yale and demand that responsibility be taken and amends be made. How? That’s not the parent’s problem, that’s the student’s problem.
If ANYONE should be expelled it should be whoever put them up to it. These kids are just dupes who need to be made to take responsibility for their actions and make amends so that they actually LEARN from their mistake as opposed to just regretting it.
But there is another layer to all of this that has to do with us as US citizens.
One thing I can say having lived abroad from the US for a number of years now is that violating the amendments and rights covering freedom of speech is not the problem here. Taking them for granted is.
We have become so spoiled as a country it can at times be nauseating. Is this what our soldiers are dying for? To defend “our way of life” and “our rights.”
The rights of these boys?
And let’s just skip the entire political mess and go to what’s really important: those soldiers are someone’s children. Most of them being a similar age as the young men in this video. I don’t want to muddy the waters too much here but that we, as US citizens (and yes, this does reflect on us as US citizens), even have the opportunity to do things this stupid is blatant and gross misuse of the privileges we have.
If these boys were living in Mexico, most of them probably wouldn’t be worrying about punishment from the school or the civil system but that coming from the familial system. And unfortunately, if they offended the wrong girl, a number of them might never be seen again. That’s just a fact of life.
They are LUCKY at this moment in time to be living in the US.
The moment you take someone else’s rights for granted, to some degree you have just forfeited your own.
As a request to the publication, publish the names of the students who participated in it and the name(s) of the students who put them up to it. That might require some investigative reporting, but it will do more to reform these boys then a bazillion comments debating the point.
Not to compare the seriousness, but merely the necessity to insist upon a change and the respecting of the rights of others, this statement sort of says it all doesn’t it:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
I agree with making their names public and punishing the organizers of the march. Great post, thank you.
If I have read your post correctly…thank you. This was well put.
Every single one of these boys needs to understand why his actions were wrong, not just cringe and slink away because they got caught doing something naughty.
That’s exactly correct.
We ALL, every single one of us have done something stupid that we regret.
But did we learn from it?
Did we take responsibility for it and make good?
That’s what separates the children from the adults. And I’m not trying to denigrate children either, there are a lot of kids I’ve seen with more responsibility than what showed up at Yale.
Best,
Dare
For what it’s worth, DKE pledging has already been suspended and there will be pretty serious consequences.
Hey JP, do you have a source on this? Email me. cooper.fleishman@gmail.com
This fraternity should lose its charter and be disbanded. Everyone that participated ought to be subject to some sort of disciplinary action.
It is no longer a fraternity, it is a hate group.
Fraternities can do a lot of good. They are social organizations that can provide structure and support to college students as well as a basis and platform for life-long friendships. But, they are also in-groups and a bit of a mutual-admiration society. Partially because of this fraternity members are more likely (than non-fraternity members) to commit a rape, use coercion, use alcohol as a tool of coercion and to commit a gang rape with other fraternity members. So, a fraternity that openly advocates rape and sexual abuse is making a very believable threat.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/189763
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/college_campuses_and_rape.htm
What scares me most about this story is that everyone knows that behind every jest is a modicum of truth. Someplace within this chapter, someone within this organization said this in jest, but probably believes at least part of it to be true. Enough to maybe blur the lines that when someone says no, they might really mean yes. That someone has enough influence, that a larger group of people ignored their own better judgment (at least I like to think they had better judgment) to go along. For the purposes of belonging to a group where someone of influence actually believes this to be true.
What should happen is a boycott of DKE by all the women of Yale and the Greater New Haven area. You want to teach consequences of their actions, women stop attending their parties, stop dating them, stop hanging out with them. By them I mean every single member of that group, because even if it wasn’t there idea, even if they weren’t involved, they did NOTHING to stop it. Who knows what else they will do nothing to stop. Unfortunately, we all know this won’t happen. There will be a party at DKE this weekend full of women and alcohol and soon enough, that person of influence will end up sexually assaulting someone. Judging by the split reaction to just this story, that woman who’s sexually assaulted will probably keep it to herself.
By them I mean every single member of that group, because even if it wasn’t there idea, even if they weren’t involved, they did NOTHING to stop it. Who knows what else they will do nothing to stop.
How do you know that no one complained. Unless you were there or a part of “internal’ discussions you really don’t know what was said so your comment is just speculation. And speculation based upon emotion can be just as dangerous.
As a female college student, I would have to agree that those chants were incredibly inappropriate. It’s not exactly a comforting feeling for a freshman woman to hear a mob of men saying that there is no way of saying no. If I had heard that, even knowing it was done jokingly, I would be completely offended, and honestly, scared. I don’t know any of these guys, and yet they’re telling me that I can’t say anything to stop them if they’ve got me cornered. It is totally insensitive.
As this is a fraternity, the university should take action. If those are the views of the fraternity, it should be dismantled immediately. Rape is not something to joke about so blatantly on a school campus.
The guys who did this should spend some time answering phones at a rape crisis hotline or volunteering at a shelter for battered women.
I have volunteered on a rape helpline for the last 3 years. It is a ridiculous notion to suggest that any of these men should be allowed anywhere near a position that requires a great deal more sensitivity and understanding than they possess. They could do untold damage to somebody phoning a helpline. Yes it would be great if they could learn more about rape and its effects and educate themselves but not at the expense of the women who telephone in their most vulnerable moments.
Reeks of publicity stunt to me. Frankly I wld have expected something a little more imaginative. London and I are not amused.
does anyone know the names of the fraternity boys?
About half way down the comments, Daddy Files asks the following question:
“What culture do you live in that condones rape and misogyny?”
ARE YOU KIDDING, Daddy Files?
What culture do I live in that condones rape and misogyny?
Oh my god.
“1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their life time.” (http://www.rainn.org/statistics)
“College age women are 4 times more likely to be sexually assaulted” (ibid.)
Some more edification:
“Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
28% are an intimate.
7% are a relative.
Only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.”
How could all this be the case unless our culture was accepting, explicitly or not, of treating women like shit? Are you suggesting that there is a tiny, tiny number of rapists going around committing acts of violence, and all the many, many good men who would never attempt rape are just POWERLESS to stop them. Wow. That would be great actually. We could go find them and kill them. No – much more unfortunately, rape is, and has ALWAYS, been a horribly inherent aspect of our male-dominated culture, and many, if not all, others.
And stop, stop, STOP harping on all this LEGAL shit. Who cares what the law says?
It used to be LEGAL to do a LOT of horrible shit, especially to women. When has the law ever proven itself as something that helps women in the historical perspective??? Sure, some courts award victories to some women, but many feminists would inform your naive ass of the hierarchy that the law constantly upholds, in which men, especially white men, especially rich white men (YALE!!!) are constantly given domination over other groups – women, people of color, the poor, LGBT people.
Daddy Files, you act like this event occurred in an historical vacuum. You completely decontextualize it by propagating the completely false MYTH that we don’t live in a rape culture.
Are you familiar with that term: RAPE CULTURE. Because if you’re not, and it certainly appears you are not, then you need to shut your uninformed, violence-supporting (albeit potentially unintentionally) mouth.
Having even the SLIGHTEST CLUE with regards to the MOST BASIC IDEAS in a discussion YOU INITIATE (!) is usually a prerequisite for people taking your comments seriously.
–RAPE CULTURE–
-From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-
Rape culture is a term used within women’s studies and feminism, describing a culture in which rape and other sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.
Within the paradigm, acts of sexism are commonly employed to validate and rationalize normative misogynistic practices; for instance, sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being, which ultimately make their rape and abuse seem “acceptable”. Examples of behaviors said[by whom?] to typify rape culture include victim blaming and sexual objectification.
In a 1992 paper in the Journal of Social Issues entitled “A Feminist Redefinition of Rape and Sexual Assault: Historical Foundations and Change,” Patricia Donat and John D’Emilio suggested that the term originated as “rape-supportive culture”[1] in Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.
In addition to its use as a theory to explain the occurrence of rape and domestic violence, rape culture has been described as detrimental to men as well as women. Some writers and speakers, such as Jackson Katz, Michael Kimmel, and Don McPherson, have said that it is intrinsically linked to gender roles that limit male self-expression and cause psychological harm to men.[2]
Researchers such as Philip Rumney and Martin Morgan-Taylor have used the rape culture paradigm to explain differences in how people perceive and treat male versus female victims of sexual assault.[3]
a GOOD comment, Holly! :
http://goodmenproject.com/2010/10/15/in-yale-fraternity-pledging-rape-is-laughing-matter/#comment-2829
AND:
Some of a discussion from a different page (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/shroedingers-rapist-and-the-imagined-right-to-intrude/):
“Liza-the-second
October 8, 2009 at 5:45 am #
Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty.
You know, it never occurred to me before now, but I’ve never seen that “one in six” (or however many) statistic turned around that way, and I think that’s probably the other side of the “how not to get raped” coin. Or… I guess… the same side, but a different part of the etching. I don’t know, metaphor, not my strong suit.
MY POINT IS:
When we talk about rape as something that happens to 1 in 6 women, it is something that happens to women. Oh no, women! You have a problem! A women’s problem! That has to do with women! What are women going to do to solve this problem?
Perhaps if we rephrased that as “one in sixty (or however many) men will commit rape in his lifetime,” the problem might start to look a little different to certain people.
lucizoe
October 8, 2009 at 5:46 am #
I would like to hand this out on the train. Awesome post.
Starling
October 8, 2009 at 5:53 am #
Liza-the-second: I know. Isn’t that horrifying? It’s not even taking into consideration the possibility that some of those one-in-six have been raped more than once. And the one-rapist-to-ten-rapes number is pulled out of thin air. We just don’t know. Because we don’t catch these creeps. We don’t put them in jail. Either there is a staggering number of rapists, or rapists are routinely getting away with numerous felonies. Either possibility is horrifying.
That, or P. Garrido/B.D. Mitchell et al have some special Santa Claus power that enables them to be in a thousand places at once. Maybe tied to the Homemade Religion? I don’t know.
Liza-the-second
October 8, 2009 at 5:58 am #
…oh that’s cool, Starling, I wasn’t planning to ever sleep again anyway.
o.o
In seriousness, though, thank you again for making that point. I can’t believe I never thought about it that way, when it seems so stunningly obvious now. And wow, it kind of makes sex offender registries look like a joke, huh? OMG! There might be a RAPIST in your neighborhood! Well… yeah… if there’s more than a handful of people in your neighborhood, there almost certainly is.”