The Anscombe Affair, Part I
Last Friday Francisco Nava (P'09), a prominent member of anti-modernity-club the Anscombe Society, was taken into an alley and beaten senseless, the culmination of a series of threatening letters which began in mid-October. Only a day before Brandon McGinley (P' 10) had this to say about the letters in a Prince op/ed:
These tactics are part of a pattern designed to silence members of our community who speak out against the hookup culture and sexual liberationist ideology.
Take that, self-righteous hunger-strikers. Strangely, the menacing letters started not after Nava's infamous condom-condemnation, "Princeton's Latex Lies," but instead, according to McGinley, after he "spoke up in class and precept" on Anscombe-y topics. The first message ominously informed Nava via his Frist mailbox, "YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE WRONG CAUSE."
Soon they came to do more than inform, however. Two days ago we learned that Nava, en route to a house in Princeton Township of a local student he tutors, was dragged into an alley and attacked by two assailants.
Here's the Prince's account:
Details of the incident have not been confirmed by Princeton Township Police or the University Medical Center at Princeton, but Nava said in an interview Friday evening that he was walking from a borrowed car to the house of a boy he is mentoring when he was stopped by a man dressed in black and wearing a ski cap. According to Nava, the man said that someone was hurt and asked for his help. A second assailant, who was waiting around the corner, grabbed Nava from behind. Together, the two men checked him against a wall and repeatedly hit his head against the bricks.
"Eventually I just blacked out," Nava said in an interview last night. "I don't remember what happened; I just saw a bunch of white." When he came to, he said, the two men were still hitting him.
The two men told Nava to "shut the fuck up" as they left him lying on the ground.
The Anscombe Society and Princeton conservatives have united around Nava. In addition to McGinley's strident op/ed, Wyatt Yankus (P' 09) has branded Nava on the Princeton Tory blog, "a true martyr to the cause of standing up for what you believe in." Indeed, Yankus, hurling his gage into the blogosphere, taunts the alleged assailants,"PS: if you have a problem with what i say, then come and get me." Another post, this one by Tory-editor Matt Schmitz (P '08), contains interesting information about the attack not found in the Prince account.
There is much in L'Affaire Anscombe to excite speculation. To be blunt, many already think it's a hoax. This is because there are books to be written on the various puzzling details and suspicious turns-of-events which riddle the whole saga (I will lay out some of what's troubling on this site tomorrow). Others think it's the work of some vicious new generation of the "gay mafia," while yet others suspect it may be the work of some hopelessly radicalized grad student for whom thuggery is praxis or something like that.
At this point, no one really knows what happened. It's best to give victims of violent assault the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, with a view to the Duke Lacrosse case, we should reserve judgment until the facts can be conclusively established.
More to come. Much more.
As always, if you know something of interest, please let us know.
UPDATE: Multiple people have informed me that "judgement" was misspelled. OK.
31 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: anscombe affair, hate crime, Princeton
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
December 17th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Wow, Princeton kids declaring war on other Princeton kids?
Reminds me of what Kissinger said about the Iran-Iraq war: “it’s a shame both sides can’t lose”
December 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Let’s be fair – if a gay student claimed to be beaten senseless by assailants who referenced his homosexuality, would people even raise the distasteful possibility of a hoax?
I disagree with everything Anscombe stands for and I still think everyone should stand firmly in opposition to the hypocritical agents of intolerance that give liberalism a bad name.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:29 am
y10,
I think people would consider the possibility of a hoax regardless of whether it was a threat against a gay student or a conservative student or a black student or whatever. There are enough examples of people from a diverse array of groups (including liberal groups) that the possibility of a hoax should be at least considered for each one. I don’t think gay people get any sort of preferential treatment, especially at a somewhat conservative place like Princeton.
Here’s an example of a hispanic student fabricating a hate crime:
http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=758
December 17th, 2007 at 1:39 am
my bet is on hoax. someone beat the shit out of a kid because he is against condoms? please. you have to be joking right. did he file a police report? if he didn’t, well definitely hoax material. if he did, i smell someone is going to jail for some filing a false police report.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:44 am
i don’t think it’s actually a hoax. who would give themselves a concussion for something as petty as this?
December 17th, 2007 at 2:02 am
A police report was filed – had to be since he was taken to the ER for an assault. Your rush to judgement, “this sounds juicy”, is appreciated by all. I know, it’s hard to believe that a member of the party of tolerance could act so intolerantly, but stranger things have happened. I just hope you immediately assumed in similar cases in the past (like Duke Lacrosse) that they too were hoaxes.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:06 am
I assume everything is a hoax. Anscombe gets no special treatment. Neither do homosexuals or Duke Lacrosse players.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Would a professor participate in a hoax though?
December 17th, 2007 at 2:17 am
“I think people would consider the possibility of a hoax regardless of whether it was a threat against a gay student or a conservative student or a black student or whatever. ”
That’s just not true. Anyways, it’s one thing for a black fireman to put up a noose and it’s another for some Princeton kid to beat themselves to a concussion in order to garner sympathy for their cause.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:52 am
y10, this conversation will obviously go nowhere in the limited capacities of the comment page on a gossip blog. but i really don’t follow your assertion: i don’t see why anyone would be more likely to suspect a hoax from conservatives than from gays. there have been plenty of hoaxes from all segments of society, most of which came from groups that would be typically considered liberal. so why would suspicion suddenly fall on conservatives? anyways, this has turned into a more abstract discussion, because i don’t actually think this one is a hoax since, yeah, they would have to be damn extreme to beat themselves up physically for the sake of this.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Hoaxes have been put forth by members of all sorts of groups, and it’s never intolerant to sensitively consider the fact that any given assault/crime could have been a hoax. The key word is “sensitively”. It’s not right to say that something is a hoax just because it happened to someone gay, black, or republican. Most reported crimes are not hoaxes, whether robberies, rapes, or assaults. With the amount of information that we have at this point, all we can say is “maybe it’s real, maybe not”. Time will tell, guys.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:44 am
I’ll tell you what’s real: the Illuminati. They’re behind this, I’d stake my gold tooth on it. Why? Well, if you understood, they wouldn’t be the Illuminati, now would they?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:52 am
I’m guessing IvyGate has a lot more to say about this, judging from what the post on First Things said.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Seems kind of ridiculous that someone would beat a kid up for being pro-chastity.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:09 am
The Tory Blog actually beat First Things to the story and has other details.
http://princetontory.blogspot.com/2007/12/former-hoax-and-injury-details.html
December 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=930
So many people’s suspicions about a hoax have been proved a little more founded in this very detailed article… the Tory article is pretty good too.
But still, I can’t beleive this is a hoax because those are absurdly serious injuries to inflict on oneself…
December 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Can’t be a hoax. No nooses and the victim is not black
December 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
before asserting that this is or isn’t a hoax, lets take a look at a few points:
1. why would anyone be so offended by Nava’s anti-promiscuity positions to the point that they give him a concussion? his claims were neither abrasive nor directed to any unified demographic
2. how likely is a princeton student to physically abuse another over political views. At brown, we generally disagree with the hyperconservatives, but the extent of the backlash is merely heated debate or ostracism.
3. wouldnt it be ironic that the pro-tolerance party would beat someone merely for his beliefs.
4. i dont understand how the alleged party knew where he was going. He was driving a borrowed car, and two people were apparently just waiting for him. it doesnt seem likely.
5. if this nava guy knew he was targeted, why would he help a guy in all black with a ski cap? The guys claim of an accident was both tenuous and generic.
its sad that a lot of the conservative groups are galvanized by this instance. even if nava was the victim of a (reverse?) hate crime, the actions of two should not be a reflection upon a whole group.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“This is for questioning our right to wear condoms”
WHACK
“And another for your slightly critical assessment of the ‘hook-up’ culture at Princeton, wherein you observe that a lasting monogamous relationship is more rewarding than just casual sex.”
THWAP
“Gay mafia for life!”
December 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
nava admitted to fabricating the whole thing…
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/12/14/news/19743.shtml
December 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
hoax hoax hoax
December 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
wow nice job
December 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
hahaha wow. wow. i know this kid, i always thought he was a bit off (was in one of my precepts). god damn.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
What a douchebag!
December 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Honestly, I don’t envy him the hell he’s going to go through. The school will not look kindly upon this, and for him and his accomplices, it’s not going to be pretty. Also, it really makes the conservatives calling for solidarity against the violent left look like buffoons. However, props to the Tory for remaining relatively level-headed and working towards getting the facts before declaring open war on liberals (whither Ira Leeds?).
December 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The Tory didn’t declare war on liberals because they heard the same rumors of a hoax as everyone else. It’s better to keep your mouth shut for a day or two than to side with the pathological criminal.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
That was my point. That would never have flown three years ago.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
The Tory has definitely become much more moderate in recent years, and more importantly more responsible. That’s to the its credit. I also want to point out that it appears from the articles like the Anscombe officers did a good job of restraining themselves from declaring open war on liberals.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
thank you folks, you can send my award in the mail.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:26 am
“I don’t remember what happened; I just saw a bunch of white.”
Well, it IS Princeton after all.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:43 am
I knew this kid. . . he was generally a good kid, seemed to want to help others . . . smiled a lot . . was nice to people . . . I don’t blame him as much as the people who a long time ago invented the religious texts who, although sometimes having good things to say, often wrote parables that sanctioned intolerance – an intolerance which inspired the events of the other night, and often in other parts of the world and at other times, much more sanguinary consequences.