How Connor Aberle and The Argus are Complicit in Slandering Casey Affleck

, by Kenneth Lonergan, Contributing Writer

Connor Aberle’s article about myself, Casey, Affleck and Wesleyan’s supposed complicity in condoning sexual misconduct – and worse – by tauting me as a Wesleyan alumn after I won an Oscar last week is such a tangle of illogic, misinformation and flat-out slander that only the author’s presumed youth can possibly excuse his deeply offensive display of ignorance, and warped PC-fueled sense of indignation. His random use of the terms “sexual misconduct” “sexual harrassment” “sexual abuse” and “sexual violence,” as if they were legally or physically interchangeable, only indicates the reckless sloppiness of his thinking. Never mind what he doesn’t know about the movies and how they are cast: That’s not as important, although it does underline that he doesn’t mind knowing nothing about his own subject. But frequently dropping the word “alleged,” which grown-up journalists mindful of their own vulnerability to libel suits are careful to include when they compose equally wrongheaded pieces on this subject, he writes as if Casey Affleck were actually guilty of a crime. In fact, it was alleged 7 years ago, in a civil lawsuit for breach of contract, that Casey sexually harrased two women formerly in his employ. Casey denounced the allegations as being totally fabricated. Like most civil suits, this one was settled out of court by mutual consent on undisclosed terms. In other words nothing was proved or disproved. So how does Mr Aberle dare to write as if he knows who was telling the truth and who was not? Anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country; the unsubstantiated details go in the public record and stay there. Somebody as interested in actual as opposed to merely vocalized social justice as Mr Aberle presumably is, should unwind his tangled, immoral chain of reasoning and start over at the fundamental precept that an allegation is not an indictment. Nor can it be treated as such by any ethical person living in a democratic society supposedly based on the rule of law. Anything less vigilant exemplifies a disjointed abuse of morals and reason which those of us on the Left like to imagine exists only on the Right. I wish it were so. But I do hope that Mr Aberle is capable of taking a much harder look at the merits of his own arguments before he decides to air his views in public again.

Kenneth Lonergan

Lonergan is a member of the Class of 1984.

The Argus does not edit Letters to the Editor submissions for style or grammar. 

161 Comments

  1. Brendan

    Does the Argus have a copy editor? Who is this “Kenneth Longeran, Contributing Reporter” in the byline? Why does “Longeran” write about “Casey, Affleck” with the errant comma? Why does the Argus edit submissions “for style not grammar” with a missing comma? Basic, basic errors abound.

    • Jake Lahut

      Hi, this is Jake, one of the editors in chief. We have several copy editors and two head copy editors, but we do not edit letters to the editor for content or style. We simply make a determination on whether they’re hate speech and publish from there.

    • Jake Lahut

      Hi Brendan, it should’ve said for neither style nor grammar. We don’t edit letters to the editor at all. The only determination is whether to publish based on hate speech and whether there’s any connection to the University.

      – Jake

    • Johnblake

      And I am amazed that you caught the errant comma, considering that you misread the other two “errors” you pointed out. In the byline Mr Lonergan (NOT “Longeran”, as you misspelled it) is listed as a contributing writer, not a reporter, which is what you or I might be considered if a piece by us were submitted and accepted for publication. A reporter would be an employee or an official representative; a writer could be any contributor. And secondly, the disclaimer states “The Argus does not edit Letters to the Editor submissions for style or grammar”, and no comma is needed. If anything, “Letters to the Editor” should be hyphenated, as the phrase is used as an adjective modifying “submissions”. Don’t be going all grammar nazi when you aren’t qualified. Now, back to the debate, to which grammar usage is totally irrelevant…

      • Brendan

        Johnblake, it appears we have been hoodwinked by the Argus staff! It is standard newspaper etiquette to note their corrections so that these sorts of blunders do not occur, but the Argus did not make any such note of their edits. As such, my criticisms were entirely accurate and swiftly corrected, though no record of this veritable Odyssey was noted. So, for instance, the article was in fact attributed to a “Mr. Longeran” in the byline. You, Johnblake, assumed that I had somehow misread and inserted all of these errors into the piece by my own fault, when in fact the errors were the Argus’, not mine. This mistaken assumption is yet another basic, basic error neatly replacing the ones the Argus scrubbed!

      • Brendan

        Perhaps the editors can resolve our dispute with a correction in their next issue, as is standard journalistic practice?

  2. really

    Didn’t you just win an Oscar, why are you responding to an article a college student wrote about you?

    Also, Argus, don’t your editorial guidelines advise not to post articles directly calling people out, regardless of how famous they are?

    • Connor

      I’m not sure where the line is drawn between calling me out and responding to my article. For the most part, in my interpretation, Lonergan responds to the merits of my argument. And I think it is only ethical that he get use the Argus platform to respond to comments made about him through the paper. I am, of course, speaking for myself and not the newspaper as a whole.

      • Aniston's Revenge

        Connor, if someone accused you of sexual assault and filed a civil lawsuit against you, do you believe that we should all assume that you are guilty?

      • g

        Son, you got schooled and that’s that. You’re young and it probably won’t be the last time it happens. But you really should know what you are talking about before you speak and, as a journalist, you should know you should know that.

    • jaxi

      Yeah, this badass old man director just went after a college student even though numerous articles have been posted about this shit for over a year now! Yeah! What a badass this pathetic lonergan is

      • mls31286

        Jaxi: Yes – the last thing we want to do is teach a college student that people should be held accountable for irresponsible journalism. And it’s not like this one hit him extra close to home as it came from his Alma Mater. We should definitely call a person pathetic for standing up for his friend who was attacked based on incomplete information. (Sarcasm)

      • jaxi

        Really just sounds like a possibly impaired young man going after a kid, but whatever suits your agenda.

      • mls31286

        Jaxi – I guess we live in a world where defending your friend and colleague from direct criticism from a college student counts as “going after a college kid”. I guess in your world college kids can say whatever they want with impunity because they are weak and unable to defend themselves from criticism… even though Connor disagrees with you himself as you can see from his comments.

        Out of court settlements happen all of the time – it doesn’t mean the person is guilty and we don’t know if they are guilty. You can’t try to bring down someones career that you have never met before because you’ve heard they are an “arrogant bigmouth”. The same question you want to ask of Casey could be asked about why the accusers settled outside of court – but you clearly don’t like to look at both sides of the coin.

        You are the only one with a clear agenda here. You clearly have a inferiority complex and will always side with the perceived “victim” regardless of the circumstances as you can clearly tell your animosity toward the wealthy and successful.

      • ourfoundingfathers

        Jaxi, you missed the whole point, much like the author. The point isn’t whether or not anything legally or morally wrong occurred. The point is we have a constitutional process in this country called “due process” which presumes one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It’s in place to protect the innocent from young college aged enthusiastic irresponsible journalists who don’t mind ruining someone’s life as long it gets them attention. Douche.

      • WhiskeyRocks

        Time for you to grow. Perhaps, after you graduate, and are forced to work and comply with your place of employment & pay your own bills you’ll understand what being personally responsible and accountable means. Swiftly, you’ll be made aware that there are no “safe spaces” in the real world and your myopic social justice, when you inflict upon others, will have economic, career changing and, potentially, criminal consequences for you.

      • jaxi

        I would also ask Lonergan how far he would go to protect his buddies with A-list connections since there obviously is a stake in him defending casey. If you guys ever do something awful and shitty, make sure your brother is Ben Affleck and childhood friend is matt damon!

      • Phineas T. Prune

        You are a very dumb poster. Who cares hold old an idiot is- Connor is an idiot who was shut down- HARD

  4. Alumn 11

    Welcome to Wesleyan. A bunch of ignorant, pc, brainwashed liberals destroying what used to be a great school.

  5. DavidL

    “The Argus edits Letters to the Editor submissions for neither style nor grammar.”

    Allow me to edit. “The Argus does not edit submitted letters for style or grammar.”

    Do you edit for substance? If not you might want to say so, since your limited disclaimer could be read to say that you do.

    Why can’t you people write clearly?

    • o-o

      Still, “The Argus does not edit submitted letters for style or grammar” could very well mean “The Argus does not edit submitted letters for style or grammar, but does for substance”, so…

  7. Mickey

    Um what evidence does the Argus have that this actually came from Lonergan? This reads more like an alt-right troll than an accomplished director.

    • Mickey

      like I’m suspicious that someone who writes screenplays for a living would have thought that the last five sentences were even vaguely coherent. It also seems extremely stupid from a PR perspective.

      • Michael

        Lonergan was an accomplished playwright long before he became a screenwriter.
        And the last five sentences are coherent, they’re just inconsistent with your worldview, which is a shame.

    • Jake Lahut

      The submission comes with an email and an IP address. I’ve been in contact with Lonergan over email since we received the letter.

    • Erin Hussey

      As an staff member of the Argus, I can attest that our editor in chief has been in communication with Lonergan and his office over the past few days. Also, seeing the amount of attention Lonergan’s letter has garnered, I’m sure we would’ve been threatened with legal action were it not the real Kenneth Lonergan.

  8. jaxi

    Lonergan, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself. You seem like an alt-right, asshole troll defending Casey’s assholery. Casey is a well known arrogant prick with substance abuse issues; let’s pretend that the allegations which he tried to silence with his money are far fetched

    • Michael

      Connor Aberle’s article about myself, Casey, Affleck and Wesleyan’s supposed complicity in condoning sexual misconduct – and worse – by tauting me as a Wesleyan alumn after I won an Oscar last week is such a tangle of illogic, misinformation and flat-out slander that only the author’s presumed youth can possibly excuse his deeply offensive display of ignorance, and warped PC-fueled sense of indignation. His random use of the terms “sexual misconduct” “sexual harrassment” “sexual abuse” and “sexual violence,” as if they were legally or physically interchangeable, only indicates the reckless sloppiness of his thinking. Never mind what he doesn’t know about the movies and how they are cast: That’s not as important, although it does underline that he doesn’t mind knowing nothing about his own subject. But frequently dropping the word “alleged,” which grown-up journalists mindful of their own vulnerability to libel suits are careful to include when they compose equally wrongheaded pieces on this subject, he writes as if Casey Affleck were actually guilty of a crime. In fact, it was alleged 7 years ago, in a civil lawsuit for breach of contract, that Casey sexually harrased two women formerly in his employ. Casey denounced the allegations as being totally fabricated. Like most civil suits, this one was settled out of court by mutual consent on undisclosed terms. In other words nothing was proved or disproved. So how does Mr Aberle dare to write as if he knows who was telling the truth and who was not? Anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country; the unsubstantiated details go in the public record and stay there. Somebody as interested in actual as opposed to merely vocalized social justice as Mr Aberle presumably is, should unwind his tangled, immoral chain of reasoning and start over at the fundamental precept that an allegation is not an indictment. Nor can it be treated as such by any ethical person living in a democratic society supposedly based on the rule of law. Anything less vigilant exemplifies a disjointed abuse of morals and reason which those of us on the Left like to imagine exists only on the Right. I wish it were so. But I do hope that Mr Aberle is capable of taking a much harder look at the merits of his own arguments before he decides to air his views in public again.

      • Mas Salleh

        Off the record.Hmmm….settled out of court.Afraid of airing dirty laundry.Hmmm….threaten to countersue but never did.Hmmm….

      • Texas Pete

        Hmmm… Learn something about he law… Hmmmm.. Innocent people don’t have to prove anything…. Hmmm… Do you know what the definition of settlement is? Ended it there… Hmmm…

      • WhiskeyRocks

        Yet, again, you prove how ignorant and irrational you are in regards to how the process works.

    • Malicky

      “Casey is a well known arrogant prick with supposed substance abuse issues…”

      Well, lets just string him up then, eh? Maybe that sentence reflects more of your beliefs than you intended, but wow. Never heard of compassion, forgiveness, humility? That makes him a guilty sexual predator? Because he smoked weed and is a spoiled brat? Really? You think the right-wing likes uber-liberal, left-wing Casey Affleck? That’s who you think is defending him?

      • Disgruntledviewer

        Arrogant prick…Guilty, so he must be guilty of all charges. Ignorant American Mentality.

        I luv the American dream….Guilty until proven innocent.

      • jaxi

        If you were accused of an egregious crime you didn’t commit wouldn’t you do everything you could to clear your name?

      • Texas Pete

        If you are innocent, the burden is on the accuser. If he fought, people would complain about that too

      • Mike Klein

        Texas Pete-these kids aren’t concerned with facts. If Casey Affleck is a true predator we would probably have heard other claims over the years. Also, since when is Casey Affleck a Hollywood powerhouse? Up until Manchester By The Sea, he was Ben Afflecks brother. He’s mostly worked with the same crew of filmmakers and actors in his career. It’s not like he commands blockbusters every summer. MBTS wasn’t even really a big picture in a lot of senses. I’m upset that this situation has become such headline news because people are ignoring Afflecks basic constitutional right of innocent until proven guilty. I just really have a hard time believing that someone would be afraid to take Casey Affleck to trial over anything as before this film he was the relative of a big star, NOT a big star himself. There is no way to know what happened. The facts that we do know are that he was accused of something, never found guilty, and it is an isolated accusation. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but he made Im Still Here w his brother in law, as in he was married to his sister. I have to imagine there would have been big problem Between the two of them if his behavior was as rampant on set as alleged.

      • Texas Pete

        @massalleh:disqus – Are you just being intentionally ignorant of how the law, or America works? You are innocent UNTIL proven guilty in a court of law. So the presumption is innocence, not guilt. But I think this new idiotic SJW class doesn’t know or care about that

    • Texas Pete

      Yeah! Lonergan, you should be ashamed! Don’t you know that SJWs don’t need FACTS or LOGIC?! And college is definitely NOT the right place to teach people when they have basic principles wrong (like being innocent until proven guilty, and not interchanging sexual assault and harassment) How DARE you sir?! Let these snowflakes have their safe spaces and their bubbles, devoid of any reason.

    • mls31286

      mackmevil: yes, you are so clever. What college/university would want to publish a letter in the school newspaper from an accomplished screenwriter who’s movie won awards at the Oscar’s? Oh yeah, every one.

  10. surprisemenot

    so when somebody doesnt like facts = a PC glossing over. sure, whatever makes you feel better old white dude defending another old white dude.

    • Texas Pete

      So, when SJWs don’t use facts then it is a problem. Or are you saying facts don’t matter?

  11. bijouxxx

    misinformation? these are straight from legal documents. there’s no misinformation, it’s filed and recorded. though maybe these are just Alternative Facts! it wasnt sexual harrassment, it was her being an uppidty binch.

  13. Prom King

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Of course in this case, the lady is a fella named Kenneth Lonergan.

  14. fuck this and affleck too

    does this bigshot director/screenwriter seriously have nothing better to do than attack a college student who wrote an op ed about sexual assault not being taken seriously enough in the newspaper of the school he transferred from……..lol bye

    • Texas Pete

      Someone needs to teach him that there is a difference between sexual assault and harassment. And that you can’t say things are true when they aren’t proven. Apparently the professors aren’t doing that.

  16. Chayse

    Speaking of things being “legally interchangeable,” does this dude know that libel and slander are not the same thing? In the words of Mr. Lonergan, that seems to indicate the “reckless sloppiness of his thinking.” Then again, grown men who write stream of consciousness rants to their college paper probably aren’t doing a lot of thinking.

  17. Alum '14

    Ughhhhh obviously this old white dude would come to the rescue of a powerful creep who is clearly leading a completely fine life at the moment. And in a college newspaper… awks…..

    • mls31286

      Alum ’14: “this old white dude” – What does the fact that he is white have to do with anything? “powerful” – What does power have to do with anything? “completely fine life at the moment” – so he should be penalised for this? Does he not deserve rights too?

      You need to look in the mirror and recognise people like you are the reason Trump was elected. You discredit and show disdain for this person just because they are old, white and powerful (your own words). You care nothing of the substance or what he wrote or the merits of his argument.

      He went to Wesleyan and he was attacked in a Wesleyan newspaper – even Connor agrees above it’s fair game to respond to these attacks.

      • Mike Klein

        Agree w you on all accounts mls. Personally, I think his response shows that he holds Wes students in high regard as well as its paper…why else would he respond.
        I really have a hard time understanding exactly why an unproven allegation has become such a headline affair. If Mr Affleck is indeed guilty of the CIVIL charges–there is a huge difference between civil and criminal charges–then shame on him. However, we can never know the truth. The civil case had other charges in it such as breach of contract. It was settled out of court to the apparent satisfaction of all parties. There have been statements from other women who worked on the picture who refuted the plaintiffs claims as well.

        Many people who are quick to attack Mr Affleck are ignoring other larger issues of humanity. Namely, one mistake does not make a man. Does Mr Affleck not deserve a second chance? The court of public opinion seems to want none of it. But, We have not–as of now–heard anymore charges of sexual harassment from Mr Afflecks previous co-workers or employees. So if this alleged harrasment did occur, it seems like an isolated incident. Moreover, I ask every one of Mr Afflecks critics to turn the scope on themselves. I can guarantee that almost all of you have done something bad or horrible to someone else that does not represent who you are as a whole. How would you feel if one mistake defined you for the rest of your life. Mr Affleck has stopped drinking in recent years and deserves the same second chance as everyone else in America. When I listen to interviews with Casey Affleck he doesn’t seem like a powerful, white, rich male in Hollywood. He seems like a soft spoken approachable human. Casey Affleck deserves a chance from everyone hating on him. I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would all feel the same way.

      • kmark

        People like you are the reason trump was elected, because only complacency in rape culture allows people to think a sexual predator is fit to serve in the whitehouse. (I’m not saying you think he’s fit to serve, just that you are contributing to a facet of the culture that enabled this.) Countless victims of his sexual predation failed to come forward about his abuses because they feared the personal consequences of coming forward against a wealthy and successful public figure in a culture and legal system that repeatedly discredits victims of assault. If our culture did not disincentivize the majority of victims from testifying (ovifying), perhaps trump would be behind bars

      • mls31286

        kmark: Correct me if I’m wrong, but basically what you are saying is if someone is accused of rape we should immediately assume the accused is guilty without trial even though our whole entire system is built on the facet innocent until proven guilty. And if the facts never come into light because the parties settle outside of court then we all must assume guilt even though guilt was never proven. You are also saying that only the accuser deserves rights as if we afford the accused their legal right to defense you are discrediting the victim. You care nothing for let’s say those Duke Lacrosse players as an example, whose lives were ruined because of a false accusation.

        I’m also interested in how our culture disincentivizes the majority of victims from testifying? Seriously, I would like to understand. And if true, how can we better encourage rape victims to testify? I don’t think calling people sexual predators that were never found guilty and trying to ruin their career is the way forward. There aren’t all of a sudden not going to be wealthy and powerful people that others are afraid to stand up to either. So practically, how do we move forward? Speaking in extremes and acting like everyone accused is guilty and if not prosecuted then people like me are complicit in a “rape culture” is absurd.

      • mls31286

        Please elaborate. What nuances am I missing? Your comment contributes nothing to the conversation. Those who comment and contribute nothing to the conversation are nothing more than trolls.

      • Mae

        Much like the negative attention Casey Affleck is getting at the moment, whether you think it’s deserved or not, many victims of sexual violence or harassment are discouraged from pursuing charges or getting damages from the perpetrator because of the additional attention that pressing charges brings to their (the victim’s) life. Generally, when a victim decides to press charges against a perpetrator, the perpetrator’s best defense is to immediately accuse and defame the victim, which is why many of the questions that victims face from law enforcement are things about what they were wearing or how much they were drinking because the victim is then guilty of somehow “enticing” the perpetrator.

        Many victims decide that this additional scrutiny is not worth it and decide not to seek justice, which is how our culture disincentivizes the majority of victims from testifying. This pattern of behavior is well-documented, and many instances can be found with a quick internet search. We can better encourage rape victims to testify by giving them the same benefit of the doubt that most everyone is rushing to afford to Casey Affleck.

        To be totally honest, I do think that Casey Affleck’s Oscar win was a ridiculous miscarriage of the Academy’s power, especially when compared to the other excellent performances in that category, like Denzel Washington’s performance in Fences. Secondary to my opinion on the Best Actor category is the fact that I do think that Casey Affleck is an unpleasant punk who is protected from a lot of the blowback from these allegations by the relative privilege he has is in modern American culture. I believe this privilege is seen in the different ways people have reacted to his case versus Nate Parker’s case. Parker was acquitted and has seen ten times more penalties than Casey Affleck probably ever will.

      • noma

        You maybe need to go back and educate yourself on Nate Parker’s situation before comparing the two. Affleck’s alleged actions revolve around sexual harassment and an abusive use of power in the workplace. Nate Parker’s alleged actions revolve around gang rape. Say what you want about the former, but the latter is clearly worse, no?

        The difference between the two has nothing to do with ‘privilege’ as you so nicely put it.

    • Disgruntledviewer

      Old…yeah, what do old people know. White….yeah, if he were black he’d be more believable.

      If your an Alum, pity the poor education you got.

  19. Sonya

    This is fantastic! I am so pleased that someone, especially Kenny, someone with a mind and writing skill which I admire has stood up for Casey Affleck and the gross negligence when purposefully using the English language specifically speaking,”ALLEGED” to slander a person. Mr. Lonergan, I appreciate your work and craft, not only MBTS but your entire body of work. I’ve never appreciated you more than I do right now. It is SLANDER. I suppose a constitutential right but it is slanderous behaviour; at this point a smear campaign. Someone has to hold these kids and in other cases simply miserable trolls accountable. Its been handled. Why are they holding onto this like a dog with a bone? Is it jealousy? Is it to get Hits on their comments and posts? It is reckless, irresponsible “journalism” and cheap sensationalism. No one was putting Casey Affleck in print until his high profile wins during this award season; this kind of reporting/writing is pathetic and cheap. I’m sure when he graduates, assuming they allow him to continue his degree at the school, he’ll end up writing for some sleaze magazine. Thank you Mr. Lonergan, your voice on this matter brought some satisfaction and is appreciated; I can only speak for myself but I’m sure there are others whom have been disturbed by this treatment toward Casey Affleck.
    *Side note- 4am please excuse typos, I’m half asleep and up to let my dog out for a few minutes. :)

      • WhiskeyRocks

        Cupcake, you’re moniker is ironic and incredibly amusing. I picture someone the size of Tess Munster.

  21. dcinsider

    I am a little surprised at the reaction of what I presume are Wesleyan students complaining that a Hollywood director should not respond to a college editorial. It seems to me a credit to The Argus that Lonergan reads it all. The fact that he took the time to respond, given that he was the subject of the editorial, means he takes what The Argus does seriously, as should any student. The First Amendment is a very powerful tool, not to be abused by any journalist, even “just” a college student.

    College newspapers are not intended to be gossip broadsheets but training ground for future journalists, a profession I deeply admire. Mr. Lonergan had every right to respond, and I believe he made some very valid criticisms against Mr. Aberle’s editorial. Mr. Aberle responded here in what I believe was the highest of levels of journalist integrity, and he should be lauded for that, even if I agree with Mr. Lonergan that his editorial lacked the thoughtfulness and sensitivity this subject demands.

    However, even if you ignore the substance, the point I believe Mr. Lonergan was making was that Mr. Aberle, and college journalists throughout the country, should be held to the same high standard one would apply to the New York Times and other respected newspapers. Of course, college journalism may not always hit those standards, college is, after all, a learning experience.

    Rather than lament that some “old guy” bothered to respond to an editorial in this newspaper, Wesleyan students should be pleased to see that their newspaper of note is being read and considered by some very important people. The staff of The Argus should strive to maintain a level of journalism worthy of its audience, both on campus and beyond its borders.

    • jaxi

      Lol he obviously just has a google alert for his name and this popped up, calling him out. Connor also made some very valid points

      • goosemumps

        Jaxi, I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here. First, you are a student at Wesleyan and, second, you are friends with the op-ed writer. If either of these assumptions is true, I understand your need to support and validate him. However, these two things are certainly true: 1) the original op-ed was horribly misguided and poorly sourced, which I agree shows the immaturity and naked bias of its writer and 2) the contemporary university environment is completely insular and indoctrinated, and I urge you to come up for a breath of fresh and realistic air soon. The leftist/liberal/progressive movement is infected with fascism, which I am terribly afraid that you and your cohorts don’t see. You are wrong here and wrong about so, so many things because you are not taking advantage of the great variety of opinions and resources that are available to you, or would be if you could actually think for yourself. Please, I beg you — America begs you — to wake up before you graduate and join the ranks.

  23. Confusedskeptic

    How can Casey disprove the allegations if both parties aren’t allowed to speak on them?

  24. McSchmid

    I am SO glad that Lonergan articulated what every competent legal professional in the country is thinking each time a right-minded journalist takes it upon himself to rail against the injustice of Affleck’s Oscar win. CIVIL suit. SETTLED. Over. Done.

    I’ve read that civilians are being murdered in Mosul, Connor. Might do well to direct your attention there.

  26. Casual Observer

    1. Lonergan probably has people who have google alerts turned on, even if he himself doesn’t. Probably an important part of PR strategy in the run up to awards season.
    2. He and/or his people realized that Connor’s piece was a bit rambling and an easy target for a rebuttal.
    3. Note to Connor: Keeping it short and on point makes for a stronger argument.
    4. You can call him a grumpy old man yelling stay off my lawn, or play the race card however you want vis a vis Nate Parker, but I doubt Lonergan is responding to every piece Vice and Vox and Broadly and Bustle and FB and Reddit and …but with a bit of history with Wesleyan and a poorly argued piece, Lonergan decided to go for it.

  27. Jen

    I can guarantee every young, white male inserting himself up Lonergan’s ass for posting this response: he doesn’t give a shit about you.

    • Circassian Beauty

      Well I’m middle aged and female and if nothing else, ol’ Kenny needs to stay away from ranting. He sucks at it.

    • focusing

      He may not care about them, but he certainly cares about the women and men (some whom he works with) who know survivors of his lead actor, and are all sharing this moronic editorial among themselves.

    • Circassian Beauty

      I will also need hard evidence that he is actually a writer. So so many mistakes. So rambling. {wince}

  29. my_sharona

    I think it is reasonable to give Affleck’s accusers some benefit of the doubt in the sense that I’m willing to accept that the two women did feel uncomfortable and perhaps marginalized in some way in their work with him. However it was almost 7 years ago, it was civil and not criminal, and they took the money for their trouble. At this point it is not only reasonable but imperative that Affleck gets some benefit of the doubt as well – that if there were any lessons to be learned from the experience that he has learned them, and that he regrets what occurred – whether what occurred was bad behaviour, a series of misunderstandings or something in between. It’s pretty inexcusable that this stuff has been haunting him for a year now and somehow nipping at his incredibly beautiful work in Manchester by the Sea. Some people need to get over themselves, and those people aren’t Casey Affleck or Kenneth Lonergan.

    • jaxi

      You have to realize that a LOT is at stake for women who work in the entertainment industry who speak out. ‘Taking the money’ says nothing; I don’t blame them for not wanting to go through a long, drawn out trial with Ben Affleck’s brother. Would you? It seems that you really lack understanding of the whole ecosystem of this kind of thing and are ‘giving Casey the benefit of the doubt’ because you don’t realize how damn easy it is for the powerful to abuse their power on the underlings. I have heard nothing but awful things about Casey and it seems that this is an extremely common that happens over and over again if you care to ask working actresses about it

      • my_sharona

        Hey, a LOT is also at stake for people accused of sexual harrassment and abuse. Taking the money says everything in that they agreed to a resolution. Who are we on the outside to behave as if it was not actually resolved? Or as if that resolution was forced by fear of – huh? – the formidable legal pull of BEN Affleck? I could argue that if I were Casey Affleck I wouldn’t want to go through a long, drawn out trial in a public climate where women are so often automatically presumed to be truthful and accurate. The point is you DON’T know what actually happened. You apparently prefer a particular narrative in support of a wider set of beliefs, bolstered apparently by yet another whisper campaign. Surely you can understand that some, including me, aren’t comfortable buying a ticket for that train.

      • Maurice Durufle

        And there is no basis in fact to claim that any money passed between the parties in settlement. The terms of the settlement are generally not disclosed. It’s just as likely that the accusers were presented with proof that they would lose if the case went to trial. Or, in the alternative, money was passed in an amount less than the cost of a defense. It’s called a nuisance settlement.

        I neither scenario can liability be assumed just because the matter settled.

        The young snots who call themselves “opinion journalists” will discover that their self-righteous SJW views will not protect them when mere charges are leveled against them in the real world. You can be sued over half a ham sandwich.

        – Krumhorn

      • Mike Klein

        im sure we would all love to hear your anecdotal evidence…six degrees of Kevin Bacon doesn’t prove a point.

      • gm

        Jaxi, please stop. You’re just wrong here, and you’re just going to keep getting hammered if you keep this up.

    • Circassian Beauty

      Did you seriously just say his totes gorgeous art negates any bad thing he might ever do??

    • Michael

      Interesting that none of this came up when he headlined Tower Heist, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, or Out of the Furnace. These journalists cheapen their point by waiting until he was in a high profile Oscar nominated film.

  30. jaxi

    Congratulations Lonergan, you just made yourself lots of alt right troll fans with this piece. Should tell you something about what you’re saying.

    • Ralphiec88

      Ad hominem attack, and a speculative one at that. Not very impressive. The deep flaws in Aberle’s screed may be overlooked at Wes, but there’s a big world out there that is thankfully much less forgiving.

  31. Jill

    I go to Wesleyan and I agree with Connor, tolerating sexual abusers should not be accepted. HOWEVER, I agree that the terms used to describe Casey’s offenses should be carefully thought. He is a sexual harasser; that’s not the same thing as a rapist, a term that should definitely not be thrown around lightly. He was never convicted or anything. While I believe the women’s claims, we should remember that he is innocent until proven guilty.

    • focusing

      The patriarchy has built-in systems for erasing the accusers of rapists. From law enforcement to legal systems to social conditioning, men designed the law and how it’s enforced, and they dominate the state and federal judiciary.

      How does a society that fails women’s equal rights for protection solve this problem? The first thing is not to celebrate men that protect one another from scrutiny.

      • noma

        Good idea @disqus_5vSfX4TPpb:disqus . Let’s just go the other way. That’ll “solve this problem”.

        I’d contend that the first thing is not to throw around the word ‘rapist’ when Affleck was only accused of sexual harrassment in the workplace…

        Let’s keep the word rapist for at least those accused of rape. Cool?

      • focusing

        I’m speaking in general here, about rape culture, which is an epidemic. When I speak directly about Antony or Casey or Joaquin, you’ll know.

  32. Circassian Beauty

    I’m sorry … is this the “level” one has to reach to go to an uber expensive private university? “Writing skills.” I’ve seen better on teenagers’ tumblr blogs. Yeesh.

      • ValiantlyVarnished

        Do you know the origins of the term snowflake? It was a racial slur used against Jews by the Nazis. Perhaps you should rethink your choice of words next time you want to call someone racist, dear. Have a nice day.

      • Diortem

        How does the snowflake respond? A Nazi analogy. LMAO – you can’t make this up.

        Grow up, snowflake. Get your miserable, racist self out of the basement.

      • focusing

        You Breitbart mice scatter when the lights go on, just like the Nazis who burned their uniforms after V-E.

      • Maurice Durufle

        No it wasn’t. Even the leftie Snopes says that is false.

        But it’s just like a SJW to trot out the Nazi stuff at the first opportunity.

        – Krumhorn

    • noma

      Stop throwing around the term ‘privileged’ when it does not apply to your point. It does not matter that they come from fame or wealth. A friend/colleague/employer came to the defense of his friend/colleague/employee that was accused of a crime. The fact that he is white or wealthy means little and is just rhetoric.

      If you had just stuck to ‘A dude defending another dude. Shocker.’, that would have been fine. If you had been contending that Affleck had gotten off lightly because he was ‘privileged’ or white, then your sentence may have held a bit more water.

      As is, your post is promoting more division and bigotry. Please think before using words that stereotype people and radicalize your viewpoint.

  34. Thisis Me

    RIGHT ON, KENNETH. Being accused of something is not the same as being found guilty of something. Women OUTRIGHT FABRICATE claims of rape and sexual abuse ALL THE TIME for LOTS OF DIFFERENT REASONS. Anyone condemning Casey Affleck for simply being accused of something needs to have his or her head examined. STOP participating in this nonsensical mob mentality, without cause. It’s disgusting.

      • Thisis Me

        Incorrect. Police departments have 40% of rape claims later admitted as false accusations by the accuser. And that’s only the ones that ADMIT it. These two skanks didn’t report anything to police. They used the mere accusation as leverage in a civil suit. Disgusting. Guarantee none of it happened. But, even if it did… he didn’t sexually assault anyone. He climbed into his own bed, as a clumsy way to come on to a girl he wanted to bang. And that’s only IF it happened. But, being that these chicks were out for money, rather than justice, I’ll bet all of the money in my pockets, against all of the money in your pockets, that it’s just a shakedown by two conspirators who wanted a payday.

      • focusing

        Sorry, you’re like any alt-right clown who pulls facts from nowhere to defend people you’ve never met. Here’s actual numbers from the real research at bottom.

        The facts are these women risked their livelihood to go public. Do know the social statistics of women willing to go to trial in civil cases who are lying about sexual harassment? It’s somewhere near less than one percent. Do know how we know this? Corroboration. Women who have made accusations in their social circle of friends who then testify can be easily cross-examined for falsehoods. That’s why judges have such power over the trial. In discovery, the insurance lawyers control depositions and then look over transcripts to gauge whether or not the accusations have merit (ie: it doesn’t seem like they’re lying because small details that lawyers can trap people who are deceptive with don’t show up). That’s how the insurance companies know they’ll be approving big settlements. That’s the only way it works.

        Try harder to think next time.

        Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False allegations of
        sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against
        Women, 16, 1318-1334. doi:10.1177/1077801210387747

  35. focusing

    Lonergan, it’s common knowledge, if you were a woman in the music or film industry in the 90s, that the scene surrounding ‘these boys’ (either in Los Feliz LA or on way West Canal Street) was dark. Do you have any idea what a shock it was to see the ‘sensitive’ Casey appear suddenly in front of the mic last Sunday night? Women who shared those experiences in sorrowful, sleepless aftermaths are now reading your rather minimal defense, based in technical and legal terms, are forced once again to confront the conditioning of the patriarchy. You couldn’t let your film stand on its own merits, so you decided to wade into the sexual affairs of your lead actor. That’s patriarchy for you, a club of men defiant of introspection. Maybe someone as eloquent as you should do something about it rather than defend it. Otherwise, that’s the last Kenneth Lonergan film I’ll ever see.

  36. WhiskeyRocks

    Well articulated by Mr. Lonergan. Aberle’s original assertions are fallacious and specious and are logically, factually and intellectually challenged in the ignorance of their construction and entirely typical of the histrionic “PC” climate that has infected academia, with the exception of most law schools and those departments that fall under the legitimate definition of STEM.

  38. MB Butler

    I have no knowledge of any truths or untruths in regards to Casey Affleck. I do however know how easy it is to accuse a person of wrongdoing. As a woman, I can’t stop thinking that if I were truly a victim of wrongdoing, there is no amount of money I would accept in a settlement. I would be bound by my honor to follow through and seek justice. Honor is simply worth more then money. Every time I hear the word settlement, my belief in the presented allegations in any case wane a bit. Understand that I am not condoning what might have been improper behavior by Mr. Affleck, but as I see it, as there was no conviction, literally nothing proved, and what I suspect was a large monetary settlement reached, then improper behavior is all that can be talked about.

  39. Marty Stevens

    Where is the fact checking? Kenny Longergan attended Wesleyan for freshman year only and then transferred to NYU for the rest of college. He is not a member of the Wesleyan class of 1984 or any year.

  40. Art Vandelay

    Wow, a lot of college students seem really upset when someone pierces their bubble. Get out of your safe space. If you aspire to be a journalist, you damn well better learn the word “alleged”. And why are we making excuses just because it’s a college newspaper, which is supposedly a “learning experience”. You are adults. Act accordingly.

  41. James

    Its funny how this person has so many opinions about this matter only because of this annoymous online setup. I can guarantee you if this was a live debate he/she wouldn’t dare speak.

  42. Tj McGee Wright

    Excellent piece. We can’t maintain public discourse in our country through witchhunts, any more than we can run a government on alternative facts. Rule of law and court of law cannot be discarded via expedience nor moral zealousness.

    • focusing

      Any irony of the metaphor witch-hunt is not lost, since witches are females.

      Men can hide behind each other in this defensive hide and seek, but the facts are clear. In the U.S., one in five women will be raped at least once in their lives. That’s twenty percent of the adult female population: 25 million women, and that doesn’t include those who are attempted rape upon or sexually assaulted or harassed. No one has a valid number for the number of women who’ve experienced all of them, but it’s certainly much more than 25 million. At one campus alone, 63.3% of men admitting to (self-reporting) acts qualifying as rape or attempted rape admitted they were repeat offenders.

      Men can pose all they want, but rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment is epidemic here. And rape is the single biggest under reported crime, 63% of rapes are never brought to the police. Only 12% of child sexual abuse is ever reported.

      And here’s where the slinking men and women who line up to defend these crony, angry boys should take notice: civil cases are rarely private, these women risked their livelihood, losing their anonymity, with testimony that becomes public record. They had everything to lose by filing suit, details of their private lives were going to be strewn across tabloids. How many production companies have blacklisted them now?

      These are not alternative facts, civil courts make it very difficult to bring faulty suits to the table.

      You boys can hide behind disclaimers, settlements, massaging legalese, but the tidal wave of exposure is coming. These are the cracks of it and Little Dutch Boys like Lonergan will have to do a much better job of plugging them in the future.

      • Zoe

        The irony of your response is not lost given the context in which the term witch-hunt was used in the original reply and also given the rest of the content of your comment in which you use statistics to insinuate every allegation of sexual misconduct must be true.

        No-one ought to suffer in life in any way. Sexual misconduct is wrong. It doesn’t mean Casey Affleck is guilty.

      • focusing

        Casey and Antony are not the subject of a witch hunt. They just got caught doing their routine on women who were professionals in the course of work that they supervised as holders of an LLC. Women who were able to convince Miller Barondess, an airtight litigation firm that rarely loses, to take their case. You may scrub your mind under the illusion that they may not be guilty. But that’s the last redoubt of the patriarchy: doubt.

        Sexual predation is epidemic in this industry, which attracts manic geniuses who were poorly constrained in childhood, who get to act out fantasies in front of cameras. Just go listen to Alison Brie interview Jane Fonda, and then watch her refuse to clap for his award that she’d just handed over to him. Do you suspect that she thinks he’s innocent?

        You’re technically right, Affleck isn’t guilty, he wouldn’t technically be guilty even if he had lost the case, (just as OJ wasn’t technically guilty of killing from the outcome of his civil case), he’d just be seen as having reasonable suspicion of doing this, and we’d be right back here.

        But facts are facts, the general public don’t know them, and insiders do.

      • Zoe

        If your statistics have so much value, perhaps the case should be made to the justice systems of the world to abandon laws and ethics and use those instead.

        But it’s OK. I won’t argue any further for two reasons.

        Reason one: I had to look up the meaning of the word “redoubt.” Although I have no learning in words-based areas, I’d like to hope my thinking still has some value, but I am not big on personal self esteem and having to look that up simply proves to myself the rubbish mind I have.

        Reason two: Of course I believe there should be equality for everyone in the world and nothing bad should ever happen to anyone, and overall I understand that you’re trying to fight this case for women. It feels pedantic of me to argue. Though I am obviously also not trying to argue against that.

        I will just add that if you’re talking about specific people, life and people are not that simple. I’ve had people do terrible things by me and it does not mean/I do not think of them all as terrible people. And I don’t think all anyone has ever done is good. People are just that – individual people – all of us flawed.

        I still disagree that unless you were there you can state Affleck as guilty as a fact. And that is a fact, not an opinion. And I also never claimed he was innocent. I have no idea. I cannot know that. That, I had hoped, was my point.

  43. Susan Ross

    Loneegan is clearly using his position to recuse Affleck his sexual misdeeds. I have a definite issue with people in positions such as Affleck and Lonergan have, to dismiss their criminal wrongdoings especially in today’s society.

    So Lonergan, stop your BS. Remember…both of you..you are NOTHING without the public. One bad movie and you’ll be back writing op-ed pieces for the national enquirer.

    • Ralphiec88

      Um…doesn’t “criminal” normally involve, y’know, charges? Innocence until proven guilty? Or is it that at Wesleyan, accusation of harassment is indistiguisable from conviction of rape?

  44. Hannah

    As Mr Lonergan states here, it would be lovely, if regarding the issue of Affleck and indeed many an issue people get irate about online (or wherever), people would remember that when you assert or assume a truth which you cannot know (and use it to accuse) you are doing both whatever/whoever you accuse and yourself a disservice and the main result of your statement is, in my view – it makes you appear in a worse light – either ignorant or cruel. Hmm…. Kenneth Lonergan would definitely tell me that was too long a sentence. I mean, it wouldn’t take Lonergan. Anyone would tell me such. I’m glad Lonergan chimed in on this anyway, so thank you Sir.

Leave a Reply

Twitter