An interesting fight is brewing at the University of California. Alexander McPherson, 64, is a leading biologist who has taken a stand against mandatory sexual harassment training on principle. Among other things, he objected to the requirement as an infringement of academic freedom and an act of political correctness. He may lose his tenured position and the University may lose a researcher responsible for $20 million a year in grants.
McPherson must attend a training course by November 12 to regain his standing — he has been suspended from all supervision and management duties. He stated: “I have consistently refused to take such training on the grounds that the adoption of the requirement was a naked political act by the state that offended my sensibilities, violated my rights as a tenured professor, impugned my character and cast a shadow of suspicion on my reputation and career. I even offered to go to jail if the university persisted in persecuting me for my refusal. We Scots are very stubborn in matters of this sort.”
Under a California law passed in 2004, all supervisors of businesses with over 50 people must undergo sexual harassment training. The University says that 97 percent of the school’s faculty have completed the training.
For the full story, click here.
At 64, I suspect his is old enough not to care. I applaud his stand for academic freedom and his stubborn insistence to resist re-eductaion. No one is for sexual harassment but absent some showing that our “true Scotsman” is in need of such training, I find the requirement overly intrusive into his freedom to be left alone. It’s like requiring training that we should refrain from stealing. Living for 64 years should be training enough!
Sexual harassment is a big problem at universities. I was harassed as a grad student and that is a vulnerable position to be in for any student. Sexual harassment is against the law. I don’t see how learning what the law is and how it is applied is stepping on anyone’s academic freedom. I do wish students could get training on the law and have an office, independent of the university, for reporting/investigating possible abuses.
I know many plant managers who don’t want to know about OSHA regs. either. Other managers don’t like the ADA or FMLA, etc. They are still expected to know and enforce the law within their corporations. Not doing so leaves their companies open to lawsuits. I do know this is honored more in the breech than in fact, but still, it is not asking something unlawful to learn the law.
Just a couple of observations. First, in any discussion freedom of expression and academic freedom, we should distinguish between expressions and actions. Everyone should have freedom of expression.
But everone must accept limits on their actions, whether it is under civil tort law or criminal law. Sexual harassment is not the expression of an idea. It is a form of intrusive action that can be harmful and destructive in the extreme.
I would define academic freedom as a free search for the truth, subject to academic discipline. I cannot see how refraining from obnoxious, sexually harassing activity interferes with that freedom.
Second, I think that professors in general occupy an inherently coercive postition in their relation to students. For example, they can ruin a student’s career with a bad grade or recommendation.
So this professor, who is about my age, is objecting to the simple fact that he must sit in a classroom and listen to some things he might rather not hear, perhaps because he has already made up his mind. These matters are directly related to his employment.
This is not exactly persecution. He is not being herded off to reeducation camp. It is just another class.
I think the search for the truth would be better served if he heard the other side of the story, rather than closing his mind. He might learn something.
I would say that he is no better than anyone else. He should really grow up. He should sit down and listen to some considerations he may not have pondered in the past, and think them over. He might put himself in the position of a vulnerable student and consider the issues from that student’s point of view.
The training could be useful to him if it spells out the potential legal liablity, civil or criminal, that he or his institution may incur from some types of activities. It is no more unusual than a class giving business people training in securities or antitrust law to enable them to avoid liability in their daily business activities.
I certainly wish the churches had given thier clergy better training in sex harassment, since it might have prevented some massive human suffering and its resulting liablity, and would not have interfered with the religious freedom of the clergy.
So, how does this training infringe upon his academic freedom to pursue his scientific studies in any way, shape or form?
I agree mespo. Perhaps if they called the course something else, it would not be such an issue.
Sexual harassment, like beauty and fairness, is in the eye of the beholder. And it is perpetrated by both genders.
The first time someone makes a sexual remark or an unsolicited, unwelcome advance, it is not necessarily harassment.
If one is offended in some way by another’s actions or off-color remark, a discreet direct request needs to be made to the individual to cease in your presence. No explanation is required.
The second time it happens, it may very well harassment. If it continues to escalate, it almost certainly is.
Too often, though, women in particular, are not assertive enough to say something and may sense, consciously or otherwise, having some advantage to gain by ‘allowing’ the behavior to continue or conversely, something to risk losing by not.
Whatever else can be said about boors, they are generally not mind readers, just social dunces.
I think an even better course would be one in self-assertiveness for those who desire instruction on how to handle all manner of uncomfortable situations in life.
Patty C wrote:
“Too often, though, women in particular, are not assertive enough to say something and may sense, consciously or otherwise, having some advantage to gain by ‘allowing’ the behavior to continue or conversely, something to risk losing by not.”
This — the risk of serious loss — is exacty the problem in a professor-student relationship, just as it is with supevisor and employee. The victim is often not free to object without dire consequences.
Sexual harassment is NOT like beauty and fairness: it is objectively ojectionable, ugly, and unfair — and it can apply to both sexes. And it cannot be palmed off as mere off-color remarks. Much of it entails offensive physical abuse.
Assertiveness can be an answer — between peers and equals. But we are talking about relationships that sometimes have coercive possiblities.
Besides, no one wants to send this poor old fool to jail. He just has to sit through a boring class. Subjecting people to compulsory boring classes has been a “crime” committed by untold numbers of professors for time immemorial.
He just has to sip a little of his own tea.
Vince, I don’t disagree with most of what you say. No one deserves to be harassed at work or school. I’m saying it’s not always what it appears to be.
Believe me, as a woman having achieved management positions in two, primarily male-dominated specialties, I know all about sexual harassment. My first eye-opening encounter, professionally, as a paralegal at the time, was when I was accosted, while doing research one evening, by an ADA in my town’s Court House Law Library – who then announced to me that he would be teaching one of my courses the next semester…
I didn’t care. He got nowhere. I made myself very clear and then I reported him to my professor who handled it for me. I also left the state, but not because of that incident.
Unfortunately, I have likewise seen, as a manager, too many instances of the office worker who wears a skirt that’s always a little too short, a little too much makeup, and a little too much perfume while often being the first to make the suggestive remarks ‘all in the spirit of office comradery’.
It’s not always an invitation to the one who responds and when misconstrued, you have to speak up – in no uncertain terms.
Plenty of people do send signals and then are upset when they attract the louts. as well.
JY: The link to the full story does not seem to work.
Patty C.: Everything you have written, among other things, should be covered in the class.
Vince/Patty C:
I think the issue is one of anticipatory punishment. May the government presume that we are going to commit illegal or unlawful acts and thus educate (punish?) us against what we might do? It is the essence of thought police to say that it may, and that is why the good Professor sees it as an infringement on his academic freedom. We don’t punish for evil thoughts just yet, the government must still prove an actus reus coupled with a mens rea. The inconvenience in attending the class is irrelevant as this is a fundamental question about when criminal liability attaches. It involves essential liberty issues and thus the government must convincingly show how punishing after proof of unlawful action is inadequate to address the situation. This is one camel’s nose under the tent we can avoid.
mespo727272
What punishment? He simply goes to a class like everyone else. There is no liberty issue. LEt’s have some common sense. No one wants to send him to jail. They are not placing an unconstitutional condition on the holding of government employment. It is a simple condition of employment, like safety training or a fire drill.
If you don’t like the condition of employment, get another job.
For examply, the employer is being cross examined in a lawsuit…
Q. Do you train employees on sex harassment issues?
A. Not any more. We were accused of infringing academic freedom, being thought police, and of anticipatory punishment. So we made it voluntary.
Q. Did the employee accused of harassment take the class?
A. No, he chose not to.
Q. No further questions.
The employer is simply trying to defend against vicarious liability by showing diligent efforts to prevent the illegal practices.
Where is the criminal liability? There is none. There is no criminal punishment. Actus reus coupled with a mens rea is irrelevant BECAUSE NO ONE IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME!
There is no limit on his academic freedom to teach anything he wants, subject to academic discipline.
He is not being singled out. Everyone has to go.
And the government has every right to can train its employees in job-related matters. It can train its police in proper procedures, without the police assumeing that they are being punished in anticipation of violating constitutional rights.
It can train employees to safeguard classified information, without their assuming that they are being accused in advance of leaking secrets to the enemy.
It is just a reasonable effort to maintain a workplace free of harassment. He has not been asked to change or alter a single iota of anything he teaches or researches. He does not have to alter any of his thoughts at all. He is just being advised of potential activities that may cause him and the institution legal problems down the road.
All the employer wants to do is to guard against an employee who may defend himself by saying that no one ever told him it was wrong to do that, so he assumed it was okay.
Vince,
The problem is you’re arguing that an employer can make employees go to the classes, this case is about the ability of the government to make the man go to class.
Unless I miss my guess, this is a CYA maneuver the Professional Liability insurer for the State of CA came up with for its
Directors & Officers/Errors & Ommissions policies in an attempt to limit its overall potential (vicarious) liability in these situations.
It’s much like the Liquor Liability clauses included for bar owners and liquor vendors. Employees are required to take a course to become informed about how to avoid serving intoxicated patrons and minors, etc.
BTW, mespo, did you take the Sweet-Sixteen case? Ive thought about it often and did quite a bit of reading at the time…
Gyges, That is irrelevant.
Alexander McPherson is Professor, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, School of Biological Sciences, at the University of California, a state university owned and operated by the State of California.
In this case, the State of California IS his employer. It is requiring him to go to a job-related class. JT wrote that “Under a California law passed in 2004, all supervisors of businesses with over 50 people must undergo sexual harassment training.” There might be an argument if he were in a private business with more that 50 people, but not here. He is a government employee.
Incidentally, most states, including Virgina, impose mandatory legal training requirements on all active lawyers in their jurisdiction. Is this anticipatory criminal punishment or an implied accusation of legal incompetence? Of course not. Is that the action of the thought police, telling lawyers what to think? No. It is just an effort by Virginia to maintain the competence of its State Bar.
Education is not punishment.
The government makes people take classes as a condition of employment all the time. It is simply not an issue.
Besides, it seems that he has been suspended from all supervision and management duties. He seems to continue as a tenure professor, with full academic freedom to teach and research.
An essential duty of a manager is to recognize and control sexually harassing activities by his subordinate employees, making training even more essential.
Training need not even necessarily imply that the supervisors and managers are the potential harassers. It should also train them to recognize what is and is not permissable.
Patty C. wrote “It’s much like the Liquor Liability clauses included for bar owners and liquor vendors. Employees are required to take a course to become informed about how to avoid serving intoxicated patrons and minors, etc.”
Right on the money, Patty.
Speaking of sex, the Feds just announced that no charges will be filed against Spitzer.
Vince,
If the policy existed before the law, I’ll grant you that point. But if the law predates or coincides with the law I think that argues rather strongly that the policy is only in effect because of the law.
As far as education not being punishment, I disagree in this case. The class analogous to community service or a Rehabilitation program. While they have benefits for the people involved, they become punishment when people are forced to participate as a result of criminal behavior. The difference is that here the people involved are being forced by the Government (regardless of who employs them) to participate BEFORE they commit any crime.
Gyges, what crime? Sexually harassment is primarily a civil matter, as part of anti-discrimination law.
It not like community service or rehabilition imposed by a criminal court. Yes, that is punitive. Her, the managers are required to take a class that assists them in PERFORMING THEIR JOB.
Didn’t you read the part about the supervisory and managerial responsiblity to maintain a workplace free of harassment? These classes train them to spot behavior of other employees. The classes apply, in part, to help perfect straight arrows, like the Perfessor, to recognize bad behavior before it blows up.
No one is going to jail because of this law. It is a purely civil matter. That is like saying that Virginia lawyers are being punished by being forced to take mandatory CLE BEFORE they commit the crime of criminal legal malpractice. Nothing of the sort is taking place. No one is accusing them of anything. The State of Virginia is just trying to maintain legal competence.
The same goes here. This training is no more punitive than safety training, personnel management, or business law.
Going out on a fire drill does not mean you are being punished as an arsonist.
Besides, the law of sexual harassment has developed over the past 40 years, both state and federal, and anyone can benefit from an update on the latest developments.
Finally, the university administrators are just doing their jobs. The law says require training for all supervisors and managers, and they are complying. It does not look like they have a choice. If the Good Doctor dislikes the law, then go after the legislators and change.
There was nothing personal in this. They were just trying to help him do his job, before he got hysterical and made a mountain from a molehill.
Also, you wrote “If the policy existed before the law, I’ll grant you that point. But if the law predates or coincides with the law I think that argues rather strongly that the policy is only in effect because of the law.” I don’t know what that means.
Gyges,
I am missing your points. Are you saying as new laws or regulations come into effect employees don’t need to learn them if they’ve been with the employer before the new laws/regs. took effect? If so, why?
Learning the law may be boring (depending on who’s teaching) but it isn’t punishment. I have a friend who works at the post office. His co-workers made any number of racial slurs to him and finally began leaving drawings of a hanging man in his work space. His supervisors, who had been trained in harassment policy did nothing, even when confronted with the drawings. The post office paid a large settlement on that case, due to 1. the original actions of co-workers and 2. the complete inaction of supervisors when confronted with compelling, repeted evidence of harassment.
There can be no punishment until the actions were taken/(not taken by supervisors). My friend could not have filed suit for discrimination because his supervisors and co-workers had been trained to recognize racial harassment. They had to commit an act of racial harassment first. One of my favorite Sponge Bob’s concerns the training manual for the Krusty Krab. It’s a wonderful send-up of the pain nearly every employee must go through upon starting work. Although mind-numbing, it isn’t punishment or pre-crime.
If you disagree with me I will call you unamerican and a socialist!
Vince and Jill,
First off, I’m not arguing saying that the administrators are bad people for complying with the law (or even doing this program voluntarily). I’m trying (badly) to echo what Mespo said. I’ll also point out that this might be the Professor’s way of trying to get the law changed. He may be trying to draw attention to what he sees as a bad law by using civil disobedience.
Secondly, what I was trying to say by (really really badly) was that if the policy is just the University’s policy, I don’t have a problem with it. I’d actually agree with you just about everything you’ve said as an argument for employers requiring the training. My problem is with the government requiring the training.
Your analogies tend to fall a little flat for me. The fire drill\arsonist is the worst offender. You seem smart enough to figure out why. This situation is more akin to (as Mespo said), a law forcing everyone who works as a cashier to take a course on not stealing. I have no problem with a company making everyone who they employ do this (aside from that it’s probably a waste of money). I do have a problem with the company being TOLD they have to have to make their employee’s do it.
Your CLE example is a little better. The difference is that you’re talking about part of a licensing process, one that’s pretty well established as being necessary. As far as I know there’s no pressing need for the government to license people to be able to supervise in businesses with over 50 people.
I want to reiterate, my only problem is with the law requiring the training, not the training itself.
Gyges,
Just so I’m clear–do you feel the govt. has the right to make laws for the safety and protection of the public?
Well, Gyges, the people of California passed the law, so it was up to them to determine if there was a pressing need. I think Jill and Patty have given good examples of the problem.
You now seem to agree that it has nothing at all to do with criminal punishment, and that is a plus.
And about mespo’s argument that this is like training people refrain from stealing? This is not solely about the empoyees, but also about the bosses. We could train managers and supervisors on methods to prevent cashiers from stealing, and there would be no problem. So why not train them to prevent harassment in the workplace? So mespo’s argument falls flat.
The mandatory CLE is exactly on point, and has not been rebutted. In fact, it often includes training in legal ethics. There is no requirement that mandatory training be a part of a licensing process. And it does resemble OSHA safety and fire training very closely.
Finally, my point — the government here IS the employer. If you have no problem with the employer requiring the training, then you have no problem here.
Jill,
I do, within reason.
Vincent,
Just because something is the law doesn’t mean that it’s a good law. The man’s breaking the law, that’s obvious, but is he breaking a just law?
Again, my problem is not with X determining the training is necessary for employment by X (even if X=government). My problem with the State of California telling all possible Xs that they need to require it.
You also have a point on how X should train it’s cashiers and management. That doesn’t mean that the State of California has any right to tell X that they should train their cashiers and management that way. Why do I have a problem with that? Because at that point it’s the Government FORCING someone to do something (admittedly through a third party) because they MIGHT break the law in the future. That sounds an awful lot like anticipatory punishment to me.
There are plenty of things that are a good idea for a business to do, but they don’t all need to be mandated by law.
Insurance policies are contracts. Insurance companies are infinitely interested in preserving defenses available to their risks.
In cases of governments, large companies, and/or high-risk Insureds, providing adequate and usually expensive liability protection often involves unique, multi-carrier packages which may also include initial tiers of ’self-insured’ retentions, for instance.
It comes down to exposures, premiums, and the budget considerations
– as it would with any ‘business’ interested in controlling costs.
Also, lets’ not confuse rights with duties.
Governments have duties.
Citizens have both rights AND duties.
Vince Treacy 1, November 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Speaking of sex, the Feds just announced that no charges will be filed against Spitzer.
____
Good for him AND mostly for his lovely family.
I’ve been thinking about him, lately, in the midst of the Wall Street Bailouts.
No matter what else I may think about what he did, he was right about this mess – early on.
Gyges, One more time, the State of California is the EMPLOYER, acting in its capacity as an employer. It is determining how to train ITS employees. No one is being punished for anything.
I understand your point — govt is the problem, not the solution. Sure. That has been very popular, among some, for some time. Look where it got us.
Vince:
“The mandatory CLE is exactly on point, and has not been rebutted. In fact, it often includes training in legal ethics. There is no requirement that mandatory training be a part of a licensing process. And it does resemble OSHA safety and fire training very closely.”
*************
The CLE argument doesn’t hold water. The requirements are not analougous. Lawyers are members of a regulated industry because of the power the profession wields in terms of subpoena power and its role as an adviser to the public and as its fiduciary. The professor is engaged in a profession that is not so rigourously regulated. For example, one doesn’t need a license to be a professor though a teaching certificate may be required showing minimum competency. Lawyers accept the requirements of CLE’s BEFORE they enter the profession. This requirement to attend a class on sexual harrassment was imposed well after the Professor accepted his appointment and has nothing to do with his compentency as a professor of biology (unlike the lawyers’ CLE which does) or if it does in only the most tangential way. The point is that lawyers voluntarily concede a measure of personal freedom as a condition of joining the profession; Professor McPherson had no such choice. It is no different than the State imposing new teaching certificate requirments on those who already possess the privilege. If it does the law requires that those previously qualified under the old system are “grandfathered in” and need not comply due to notions of fundamental due process and fairness. In essence the government here is trying to change the rules of the game in a profession it only marginally regulates, and that is the essence of unwarranted control of the private sector.
Vince:
“No one is being punished for anything.”
************
I suspect you would agree that being compelled to do something you did not want to do under penalty of job loss would be punishment. This is especially true if the requirement was not made known to you at the outset of the contract. This is not about training employees to perform their jobs. This is about modifying attitudes of those for whom no proof of the need for such modification exists. That is “Big Brother-ism” no matter how you want to mask it as simple employer-employee contractual relations. If the class dealt with the qualifications of his job–fine. But that is not the case here. Would you feel so strongly, if instead of a sexual harassment class, he was compelled to attend a class on total abstinence from alcohol? How about a fundamentalist religion class? Under your logic, the classes would serve an arguably beneficial purpose and thus would be permissible. Can your employer then impose any condition on your employment if it wants to change or reinforce your attitudes? What if your employer wanted you take a class on the virtues of George Bush and the Republican Party? That would be more than punishment, would it not. Indeed, that would be torture.
Hey training is part of every job. When I worked as a sous chef, the restaurant owner always wanted us to go to training classes such as food safety, sanitation, etc. We also had to all have First Aid and CPR training.
Did I hate taking the food safety and sanitation classes? Um yes. I never learned anything new, it was boring. But it does help keep you up to par on things.
And with First Aid and CPR, the rules on how it is done are always changing.
He needs to act like an adult and take the class. It’s not like he’s being forced to take a religious class or something. It’s probably one of those Saturday classes that lasts a couple of hours and he justs wants to be difficult.
Maybe he has a guilty conscience though
Mespo,
He isn’t being threatened with a loss of job or salary. He simply may not supervise without taking the course. The reason that the examples you gave are not comparable to a course on sexual harassment is this: it isn’t yet against the law to be anything other than a fundamentalist christian or to think only virtuous thoughts about GWB, or to abstain from alchohol. Sexual harassment is against the law.
Grade and high school teachers take CEC to stay current with their subjects. If a new law is passed concerning sexual harassment training for supervisors then it doesn’t matter how long he’s been employed, he needs to learn and understand the new law. When lead paint was outlawed for children’s toys, we had to get them from China instead because companies couldn’t make them here anymore! Businesses get new laws/regs etc. to deal with all the time. Updating on new proceedures is in compliance with the law, nothing more.
Vince,
Please don’t make assumptions about me based on my views on one particular subject. Just because I feel that a particular law is too over-reaching and intrusive doesn’t mean that I think government is bad. I like Government, I like law and order, roads, etc. The thing is, I think that there are some areas that government should not intrude on.
I’m either being unclear or you’re deliberately missing the point. So, for the final time: I’m not saying that the University (As run by the State of California) shouldn’t be able to make the man take the course as a condition of his employment. I’m saying that the State of California shouldn’t be making everyone else (who has over 50 employees) make some of their employees take the course as a condition of employment.
JIll:
From JT’s synopsis:
“He may lose his tenured position and the University may lose a researcher responsible for $20 million a year in grants.”
Sally:
“He needs to act like an adult and take the class.”
****
That’s similar to the logic for mandatory re-education classes forced upon the Tibetan monks by the Chinese. Here’s an article excerpt from Barbara Demick in the LA Times:
“In an effort to quell unrest, Communist Party officials are ordering Tibetans back to school.
Buddhist monks, civil servants and public school students have been instructed to attend special classes in the virtues of Chinese rule and the evils of their exiled leader, the Dalai Lama. In these classes, the Tibetans read and recite from texts that denounce the Dalai Lama as a “political reactionary” and a “betrayer of the motherland.”
Ideological training is an enduring feature of Communist life, but has taken a back seat in a country consumed with more modern pursuits, such as making money. But in Tibetan areas, the Communist Party is pursuing “patriotic education” with new zeal.”
This coercion is not our culture and I am more than a little surprised that you and Vince see no problem with it. Maybe you should ask those monks.
Mespo…
The thing is, is that it’s just a Sexual Harassment class. I do not understand why he is so against taking it.
I do think it’s a little extreme for them to suspend him over it. Has he taken the class in the past? Why is it an issue now?
I’m sure he’s very well educated on the matters of what sexual harassment is.
I think that this is a molehill being made into a mountain
Once again, let’s not confuse rights and duties.
Governments have duties.
Citizens have both rights AND duties.
Perhaps his research grant money is not that vital to the institution.
Perhaps, the institution’s administrators are not prepared to be bullied on this particular point, by him in particular, nor anyone else, for that matter.
That’s a very good point Patty. I never thought of it that way.
Do you think that they’re calling his bluff?
Gyges: I’m not saying that the University (As run by the State of California) shouldn’t be able to make the man take the course as a condition of his employment. I’m saying that the State of California shouldn’t be making everyone else (who has over 50 employees) make some of their employees take the course as a condition of employment.
Okay, Gyges. But, for the third time, that is irrelevant.
The entire thread is about a man told to take some OJT, on job training, by his employer, and raising a fuss. That is the point. The application to private employees is something else. I have already said this at least twice.
“Alexander McPherson is Professor, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, School of Biological Sciences, at the University of California, a state university owned and operated by the State of California.
In this case, the State of California IS his employer. It is requiring him to go to a job-related class.”
“Gyges, One more time, the State of California is the EMPLOYER, acting in its capacity as an employer. It is determining how to train ITS employees. No one is being punished for anything.”
Now I have said it three times. Under established legal doctrine, THAT MAKES IT TRUE!
Mespo wrote:
“Lawyers accept the requirements of CLE’s BEFORE they enter the profession.”
Everyone on the thread should know that this is false, and Mespo must know it.
Mandatory CLE was imposed on all active members of the Virginia State Bar long after I was sworn in in 1972.
Bar Associations all over the country have imposed it on all existing member many times.
Mespo wrote: “In essence the government here is trying to change the rules of the game in a profession it only marginally regulates, and that is the essence of unwarranted control of the private sector.”
Mespo, it is not the private sector. UC is owned and operated by the State of California for the people of California. It is in the public sector. He is a public employee.
Vince,
I wasn’t under the impression that you were the only one that gets to decide what’s relevant to a conversation. I’ll be sure to run things by you in the future before bringing them up.
As an aside, since the Prof. justifies his refusal by saying that the state law is unjust (well he says the state is being unreasonable, and since most people would refer to the University as the University and not the state, I made an assumption), the matter of the law being just or unjust is pretty relevant. But hey, your call.
As a former federal employee, I had to attend numerous EEO/Sexual Harassment training (indoctrination) sessions. The classes were somewhat wasteful and repetitive but…
I must admit to somewhat understanding the professor. Such repetitive training is similar to suggesting that if you do not continue to take this class how will you ever be able to avoid or stop beating or harassing your wife, girlfriend, or any other female.” (From a male’s perspective)
I think this might fall in the category of a leading question, “when was the last time you beat your wife?” I am most certainly for limited government and these classes “might” suggest legislating “morality” (from a devil’s advocate’s or perhaps the professor’s view).
The good professor should take the class, although he will observe a good measure of double standard hypocrisy in the training, as I often observed.
For anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet, VT is a big deal
Labor Law/Employment lawyer in DC!
He may just know a smidge more than I
- or the rest of you
Sally 1, November 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm
That’s a very good point Patty. I never thought of it that way.
Do you think that they’re calling his bluff?
*****
Tough call. I think he is calling their bluff, for sure.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he already has another offer and is
preparing to take other ‘disgruntled’ colleagues along with him
- whenever and wherever he plans to go.
Patty C.
Thank you very much, but I must demur. I am a retired federal attorney, but I am not a big deal.
I have noted that Patty, Jill, Sally and FFLEO have all agreed that this is not a monumental issue, and the professor ought to sit down and listen and learn.
And I think Jill said it better than I did: “I know many plant managers who don’t want to know about OSHA regs. either. Other managers don’t like the ADA or FMLA, etc. They are still expected to know and enforce the law within their corporations. Not doing so leaves their companies open to lawsuits.” Exactly right.
The Professor is running a lab, and his employer, UC and CA, want to be sure he knows the law, can prevent lawsuits, and perhaps help avoid needless harm. The training does in fact deal “with the qualifications of his job.” They don’t care what he thinks, the care what he does in the course of his employment.
The law in this area did not exist 40 years ago. Everyone needs training, not just new hires.
The horror stories of re-education and monasteries are just that — preposterous parades of horrors. This guy wants to get out of job training.
Finally Mespo wrote: “I suspect you would agree that being compelled to do something you did not want to do under penalty of job loss would be punishment.” I do not agree. Everyone has had to do something they did not want to do, at some time in their lives, in order to keep their job. For most, it is called by the technical legal term of “earning a living.”
Personally, I have always maintained a policy of keeping my pen out of the company ink so this is a largely irrelevant conversation for me. The path of least resistance would be take the course and get on with it and that is indeed what I’d advise. As you pointed out, it’s not an indoctrination camp, it’s just job training.
To Play Devil’s Advocate:
“Finally Mespo wrote: “I suspect you would agree that being compelled to do something you did not want to do under penalty of job loss would be punishment.” I do not agree. Everyone has had to do something they did not want to do, at some time in their lives, in order to keep their job. For most, it is called by the technical legal term of “earning a living.””
The technical term for that can also be “capitulation”.
The Prof. is standing on what he considers principle, Vince. He has a right to his principles as much as you or I. He also has the right to stand up for them even if it pisses you off and/or if you think they’re wrong. His idea of a just law and yours are different. Too bad. That’s what the adversarial judicial process is for. I’m sure you know the saying about the foundation of tyranny being in the abeyance of unjust laws and disobeying an unjust law is what he considers this case about. Your posts have smelled more of judgment than advocacy. Unless you’re the presiding judge in this case and privy to all the specifics (or you’re omniscient), at this point it’s just your principles and opinion against his no matter what law you quote or your experience. Good principle and good legalisms or law are not always twins – look at segregation. It was once the law of the land until principled people stood against it. The bottom line is that he has the right to have his case heard fully and fairly regardless of what you think of him, the principles upon which he stands, or his chances of winning.
______
That being said, some people just can’t tell dragons from windmills. Intrusive state sponsored ideology is often both dangerous and unjust, but this sounds like grinding grain, not breathing fire. Professor, if you’re reading this, take that damn class and find some other injustice to fight over. Yeah, it’s a fight, but it certainly isn’t a good one.
From Orange County Register, Nov 11, 2008
Co-workers pressure UCI prof to take sex harassment course
A UC Irvine professsor who might be placed on unpaid leave for refusing to take state-mandated sexual harassment prevention training is being pressured by his staff to change his mind because they fear they might lose their own jobs.
Yurii Kuznetsov, a microscope expert, and Steven Larson, an X-ray crystallographer, emailed biologist Alexander McPherson over the weekend urging him to reconsider his position.
McPherson, an award-winning researcher who has brought about $20 million in research funds to UCI over the past decade or so, refuses to take the training because he believes it is a “sham” that offends his sensibilities and casts suspicion on his reputation.
UCI has suspended McPherson’s supervisorial duties and has said that he might be placed on unpaid leave if he doesn’t take the course at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.
Larson and Kuznetsov emailed McPherson on Nov. 9 and said, in part, “While we respect your commitment to principle and support your efforts with respect to this policy, we have concerns that if you were to be permanently relieved of all supervisory responsibility at UCI, or be placed on unpaid leave, then it would seem to logically follow that you cannot administer the recently awarded NIH grant whose funding is due to begin in December.
“The result, it seems, is that we would lose our positions at UCI as well, since there would be no funds with which to pay us. Since we are both approaching retirement from the University, loss of our positions would be devastating. We simply cannot such a loss, especially in light of the difficulty economic times that this nation is experiencing now and for the foreseeable future.”
McPherson said by phone that he is sensitive to his staff’s concerns, but has not decided whether he will take the course to insure that his colleagues continue to have jobs.
“…refuses to take the training because he believes it is a “sham” that offends his sensibilities and casts suspicion on his reputation.”
Yep, those are all such great reasons to A. violate the law and not take the course and B. not insure one’s colleagues a job. That man is a model of ethics, a man dedicated to justice!
Thanks for this update Vince.
“McPherson said by phone that he is sensitive to his staff’s concerns, but has not decided whether he will take the course to insure that his colleagues continue to have jobs.”
If McPherson refuses to take the training in light of the devastating consequences, if factual, then his character is sufficiently flawed to draw into question his *real* motive for shunning the training.
Surely, any decent, fundamentally fair-minded individual would not ‘grandstand’ while his colleagues lost their jobs because of his insolence for authority or from misguided pride.
Jill and FFLEO,
You guys hit the nail on the head. Selfish is the only word that comes to mind when he won’t at least swallow his pride to help out his co-workers.
Well we must then consider Sir Thomas More the most selfish of men since his stand for conscience and principle cost his family millions in today’s dollars and their lands and livelihoods not to mention costing More his head. Principle is expensive even today,and I stand in awe of those willing to suffer for it.
Mespo wrote: “Well we must then consider Sir Thomas More…”
Yes, Mespo, let us consider Saint Thomas More, the Man for All Seasons. He suppressed free thought (which he called heresy), barred Lutheran books from England, banned Protestant preaching, and, most interestingly, burned heretics as the stake. He may have stood for freedom of conscience, but only for those who agreed with him. He certainly would have rejected “re-education” or harassment classes, since as Lord Chancellor he could have dissenters executed, not merely retrained.
Yet you now compare McPherson to More. That is ridiculous. More was an executor of heretics, not a warrior for freedom of thought. He died to affirm the authority of the Pope and Catholic Church in England, not for the freedom of the individual from state coercion. This example has absolutely no bearing on the trivial matter of OJT for an upset professor.
These arguments from history should be used with caution. It is a lot like using Thomas Jefferson the slaveowner as an example of a model employer for our times.
As Marx may have written, history often repeats, the first time as tragedy and the second as farce.
The following is from public domain Wiki, edited with notes omitted:
QUOTE ON Campaign against Protestantism.
More thought of heresy as a threat to the unity of both church and society. His early actions against the Protestants included aiding Cardinal Wolsey in preventing Lutheran books from being imported into England. He also assisted in the production of a Star Chamber edict against heretical preaching. Many literary polemics appeared under his name, as listed above. After becoming Lord Chancellor of England, More set himself the following task:
“Now seeing that the king’s gracious purpose in this point, I reckon that being his unworthy chancellor, it appertaineth… to help as much as in me is, that his people, abandoning the contagion of all such pestilent writing, may be far from infection.”
As Lord Chancellor, More had six Lutherans burned at the stake and imprisoned as many as forty others. His chief concern in this matter was to wipe out collaborators of William Tyndale, the exiled Lutheran who in 1525 had published a Protestant translation of the Bible in English which was circulating clandestinely in England (Tyndale had also written The Practyse of Prelates (1530), opposing Henry VIII’s divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts).
In June 1530 it was decreed that offenders were to be brought before the King’s Council, rather than being examined by their bishops, the practice hitherto. Actions taken by the Council became ever more severe. In 1531, Richard Bayfield, a graduate of the University of Cambridge and former Benedictine monk was burned at Smithfield for distributing copies of the New Testament. Further burnings followed at More’s instigation, including that of the priest and writer John Frith in 1533. In The Confutation of Tyndale’s Answer, yet another polemic, More took particular interest in the execution of Sir Thomas Hitton, describing him as “the devil’s stinking martyr.” END QUOTE
Professor Skips Class in Sexual-Harassment Prevention, Imperiling…
Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) – 3 hours ago
Alexander McPherson, a biologist at the the University of California at Irvine, says that instead he will work on experiment…
mespo,
I just don’t think this is McPherson’s Rosa Park’s moment. If there is any conscience involved it’s a bad one. He is protesting learning about how to protect the civil rights, an expansion of civil rights, for other people. In the meantime he’s willing to sacrifice the jobs of two coworkers. These are not the actions of an ethical man. If I had to finger a real motive, I’m going with classism. He probably feels his position is such that he should not be bothered by trivial matters best left to the unlettered, untutored, menial minds of everyone else.
Vince:
Whatever his sins, More died for freedom of conscience and principle. That is historical fact not opinion. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand much.
The professor deserves what he gets.
As a former federal employee, I would have been fired if I had refused those mandatory classes/training sessions. I did not like spending the time required, although I followed the rules and regulations.
mespo, You do not understand much. He was executed for treason, rightly or wrongly. He did not care about freedom of conscience or principle for Protestants, only for Catholics and himself.
He was a brave martyr for his Catholic faith.
He has nothing to do with academic freedom.
November 12, 2008
Professor Skips Class in Sexual-Harassment Prevention, Imperiling His Job
This just in from Alexander McPherson, the University of California at Irvine biologist who refuses to take a state-mandated training class in sexual-harassment prevention at his university: He won’t be attending today’s class, which is slated to begin at 10 a.m., Pacific time.
Mr. McPherson, whose absence could cause him to be put on unpaid leave, said he would be working instead on an “experiment that’s going to take up all of my time this morning.”
The molecular biologist has said that the training, among other things, puts his career and reputation at risk.
According to the Orange County Register, at least two members of Mr. McPherson’s staff have urged him to change his mind because their jobs, with salaries covered by grants he secures, depend on him.
Mr. McPherson said the plight of the people who work in his lab “makes this a very, very difficult situation.” However, he is counting on the university to do what it takes to keep his staff from possibly losing their jobs over his stance.
“What I am betting on is that ultimately we’re going to resolve this in a rational matter,” Mr. McPherson said. —Audrey Williams June
Posted on Wednesday November 12, 2008
Hmm…
I wonder what Sir Thomas Moore would say about Sensitivity Training:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/previous_episodes.do?episodeid=s6/sensitivity
Bob,Esq:
He’d probably put Vince in there!
Vince:
“He [More] has nothing to do with academic freedom.”
*************************
I thought the freedom to think as you choose was the essence of academic freedom. Silly me.
I much prefer Erasmus’ description of his old friend Thomas More in his famous letter to Ulrich von Hutten as compared to Vince’s assessment:
“. . .In human affairs there is nothing from which he does not extract enjoyment, even from things that are most serious. If he converses with the learned and judicious, he delights in their talent, if with the ignorant and foolish, he enjoys their stupidity. He is not even offended by professional jesters. With a wonderful dexterity he accommodates himself to every disposition. As a rule, in talking with women, even with his own wife, he is full of jokes and banter. No one is less led by the opinions of the crowd, yet no one departs less from common sense . . . .”
“In human affairs there is nothing from which he does not extract enjoyment, even from things that are most serious.”
So, Mespo, he extracted enjoyment from burning heretics?
“I thought the freedom to think as you choose was the essence of academic freedom. Silly me.”
No, Mespo, it is the freedom for yourself AND EVERYONE ELSE to engage in the free search for truth, subject to academic discipline, that is the essence of academic freedom. Silly you.
More believed in the freedom to think as HE chose, but not for the freedom of Protestants to think as they chose.
And no, Mespo and Bob, More would not have put me in sensitivity training. He had far worse methods.
Bob, Esq, I know what More would have thought of you if you are not, in fact, a devout Catholic. You would be a candidate for burning, not for sensitivity training.
“it is the freedom for yourself AND EVERYONE ELSE to engage in the free search for truth, subject to academic discipline, that is the essence of academic freedom.”
Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object; i.e. not the agreement between knowledge and its object subject to…[anything].
Then again it appears I’ll have to pray to St. Jude on this one; right?
SIYOM,
Bob
Vince:
More denied those atrocities but it appears that may have been more about improbity than false accusation. The point remains that he was persecuted for refusing to sign a document verifying his acquiesence to a proposition with which he did not agrre and that is an attack on his conscience. To denigrate him does not challenge nor diminish that simple fact of history.
Mespo, your history is worse than your law,and you are very confused about both. More was convicted for something he allegedly said denying the supremacy of the King over the Church in England, not for refusing to sign a document. More never denied prosecuting heretics. He wrote an entire book denouncing them.
Wiki: QUOTE On 1 July 1535, More was tried before a panel of judges that included the new Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley, as well as Anne Boleyn’s father, brother, and uncle. He was charged with high treason for denying the validity of the Act of Succession. More believed he could not be convicted as long as he did not explicitly deny that the king was the head of the church, and he therefore refused to answer all questions regarding his opinions on the subject. Thomas Cromwell, at the time the most powerful of the king’s advisors, brought forth the Solicitor General, Richard Rich, to testify that More had, in his presence, denied that the king was the legitimate head of the church. This testimony was almost certainly perjured (witnesses Richard Southwell and Mr. Palmer both denied having heard the details of the reported conversation), but on the strength of it the jury voted for More’s conviction. UNQUOTE This is confirmed in Marius’s biography.
Your history seems to be a string of quotations wrenched out of context. You confuse conscience with academic freedom. Everyone now, the U. S., has freedom of conscience, unlike More’s England. More would never have signed the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or 13th or 14th Amendments. So what has he to say to us today?
Freedom of conscience is one thing. Academic freedom a related but distinct doctrine. It applies to university teachers who meet professional standards monitored by their peers. It gives them the freedom to explore new truths in their fields of expertise without political or religious interference. But their research must meet professional standards.
I admire the brave Protestants and Catholics who died for their beliefs. I do not admire the Inquisitors and other prosecutors who persecuted them.
The cold hard historical fact is that More was one of the prosecutors before he met a similar fate himself. He had many admirable qualities, but support for the freedom of conscience of others was not one of them.
Go ahead and admire him if you please, but do not put him forward as a champion of freedom of conscience for anyone but himself.
Bob, esq.: Academics must meet professional standards in their field to maintain their tenure and academic freedom.
Vince:
“More was convicted for something he allegedly said denying the supremacy of the King over the Church in England, not for refusing to sign a document.”
***************
I suggest you read more and argue less. It might prevent your reliance on half-truths. Here are the elements of the charge against More from Encyclopedia Britannica:
“[More] was summoned to appear before royal commissioners on April 13 to assent under oath to the Act of Succession, which declared the king’s marriage with Catherine void and that with Anne valid. This More was willing to do, acknowledging that Anne was in fact anointed queen. But he refused the oath as then administered because it entailed a repudiation of papal supremacy. On April 17, 1534, he was imprisoned in the Tower.”
The oath read in pertinent part: “…. by reason whereof the Bishop of Rome and See Apostolic, contrary to the great and inviolable grants of jurisdictions given by God immediately to emperors, kings and princes, in succession to their heirs, has presumed, in times past, to invest who should please them, to inherit in other men’s kingdoms and dominions, which thing we, your most humble subjects, both spiritual and temporal, do utterly abhor and detest;…”
Wikipedia elaborates:
“On 1 July 1535, More was tried before a panel of judges that included the new Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley, as well as Anne Boleyn’s father, brother, and uncle. He was charged with high treason for denying the validity of the Act of Succession. More believed he could not be convicted as long as he did not explicitly deny that the king was the head of the church, and he therefore refused to answer all questions regarding his opinions on the subject. Thomas Cromwell, at the time the most powerful of the king’s advisors, brought forth the Solicitor General, Richard Rich, to testify that More had, in his presence, denied that the king was the legitimate head of the church. This testimony was almost certainly perjured (witnesses Richard Southwell and Mr. Palmer both denied having heard the details of the reported conversation), but on the strength of it the jury voted for More’s conviction.”
Though Richard Rich did in fact falsely testify that More had denied the King’s Supremacy, the fact of his refusal to sign the oath was the basis for the charge. Rich’s perjury came later and the conviction came under the Treason Act of 1534. The niceties of the charge matching the proof having been conveniently dispensed with by the Chancellor.
Disingenuous arguments do you no credit, and ad hominem attacks prove nothing about the original assertion only about the one resorting to the long discredited practice.
“Bob, esq.: Academics must meet professional standards in their field to maintain their tenure and academic freedom.”
Indeed; thus peer review.
However, academic freedom has nothing to do with deeming a professor as a supervisor for employment law purposes:
http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Feb/6/133651.html
mespo, There were four charges on July 1st. Three of them were baseless. The fourth charge was based on his supposed denial of supremacy in the presence of Riche. Testimony seemed to be in conflict, so someone was lying. The judges ruled against More ON THAT CHARGE, and convicted him of an act of treason.
I am sorry you had to stay up so late, but you still have it wrong.
More’s antagonists did not have a case of treason based on his refusal to sign, since it seems he, as a lawyer, had outsmarted them: he had not explicity denied the king’s supremacy over the Church under the law by spoken or written word.
It is very important to lawyers to know the the exact nature or a charge or indictment. On page 505 of Marius, you will find that, in the fourth count, More was accused of a treasonable conversation with Richard Riche on June 12, when, according to the indictment, More “falsely, traitorously, and maliciously” spoke against the statute. There seems to have been nothing in the indictment about failure to sign the Act.
If Riche was telling the truth, More was guilty. If he was lying, More should not have been convicted. The record is fragmentary, and a lot of history was written by Roper, a partisan source, so the historians have their hands full. No one really knows what happened between Riche and More.
Anyone interested could read Richard Marius, Thomas More: A Biography.
Marius notes that only one witness to treason was needed at the time; the law was later amended to require two witnesses. That was carried into in our Constitution. It appears that the charge of treason has always required that there be an “act” against one’s country.
I repeat my posting: “More was convicted for something he allegedly said denying the supremacy of the King over the Church in England, not for refusing to sign a document.”
Bob “However, academic freedom has nothing to do with deeming a professor as a supervisor for employment law purposes”
So what is your point?
McPherson claims that his academic freedom is at stake.
Jill wrote: “I just don’t think this is McPherson’s Rosa Park’s moment.”
You are absolutely right, Jill!
It is much more like a George Wallace — standing in the schoolhouse door — moment
Vince,
McPherson does seem a bit like Mr. Wallace. Sexual harassment is a very serious crime, which many people blow off as inconsequential, I believe in part, because they think it’s a woman’s problem. This society tends to minimize harm to women or blame the victim when the victim is a female.
I will mention two instances of sexual harassment: 1. a woman in the electrical union was given false information by coworkers who resented having a woman in “their” job. Being told a switch was off when it was not nearly resulted in her death. 2. a male veteran with severe PTSD and a history of sexual abuse in his family of origin had a female supervisor reach down his pants as she snuck up on him from behind. Guess what effect this had on a combat vet with PTSD.
These are just two examples in a sea of very serious cases. We do owe each other a workplace without this kind of bullshit. Sexual harassment law is about being able to go to work/school, do a good job, and be rewarded for the work we do.
It is difficult for me to understand why any person would not want to assure a sane, safe working environment for all. People of good will should not object to learning how to make this possible. It assures the expansion of civil rights for others. It assures that people may go to school or work and not have to leave or lose a job/chance at education due to illegal behavior by others.
This is a big deal.
Vince:
You are the master of the trifle, expertly knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing. To seriously contend that More was not the standard bearer of freedom of conscience despite his flaws relegates you to realm of those scruffy souls I see parading around in the park proclaiming that the “end is near”– though they probably are technically correct and somewhat amusing, you can’t put much stock in what they say as they continually seem genuinely baffled by all the trees they keep hitting while strolling through the forest.
Vince Treacy: “Academics must meet professional standards in their field to maintain their tenure and academic freedom.”
Bob: “However, academic freedom has nothing to do with deeming a professor as a supervisor for employment law purposes”
Vince Treacy: “So what is your point? McPherson claims that his academic freedom is at stake.”
What’s my point? More like where is your argument. Apparently Buddha Is Laughing had a point and apparently re-assigning premises whenever they don’t suit your fancy seems to be part of your methodology.
BTW, simply because someone makes a glib remark in passing (through a debate) it does not necessarily follow that he has chosen any particular resolution in the matter.
for Vince, this is what the AACU has to say about academic freedom:
Academic freedom is sometimes confused with autonomy, thought and speech freed from all constraints. But academic freedom implies not just freedom from constraint but also freedom for faculty and students to work within a scholarly community to develop the intellectual and personal qualities required of citizens in a vibrant democracy and participants in a vigorous economy. Academic freedom is protected by society so that faculty and students can use that freedom to promote the larger good.
In defense of Mespo, ‘d’Man for all seasons’:
“On 13 April of that year More was asked to appear before a commission and swear his allegiance to the parliamentary Act of Succession. More accepted Parliament’s right to declare Anne the legitimate queen of England, but he refused to take the oath because of an anti-papal preface to the Act asserting Parliament’s authority to legislate in matters of religion by denying the authority of the Pope, which More would not accept. The oath is written here in modern day English.
….And at the day of the last prorogation of this present Parliament, as well the nobles spiritual and temporal as other the Commons of this present Parliament, most lovingly accepted and took such oath as then was devised IN WRITING for maintenance and defence of the said Act, and meant and intended at that time that every other the king’s subjects should be bound to accept and take the same, upon the pains contained in the said Act, the tenor of which oath hereafter ensueth:…
http://www.answers.com/topic/sir-thomas-more
… And forasmuch as it is convenient for the sure maintenance and defence of the same Act that the said oath should not only be authorized by authority of Parliament, but also be interpreted and expounded by the whole assent of this present Parliament, that is was meant and intended by the king’s majesty, the Lords and Commons of the Parliament, at the said day of the said last prorogation, that every subject should be bounden to take the same oath, according to the tenor and effect thereof, upon the pains and penalties contained in the said Act….
Four days later he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, where he wrote his devotional Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation.”
And finally, if there’s a system in place where someone knows they can explain to someone in a position of authority a complaint or a concern, it should never get to a point where a situation becomes severe enough, or an atmosphere pervasive enough, to impose a hostile work environment on employees in the first place. The object of the exercise is to have a policy in place that promotes MUTUAL respect.
Mespo wrote to me that “ad hominem attacks prove nothing about the original assertion only about the one resorting to the long discredited practice.”
Mespo, I do not see how I can make an ad hominem attack on you, since you are just a pseudonym, and I have no idea who lurks behind it. You are a pen name, a nom-de-plume, an alias. The worst I could have done was to write some “ad pseudonym” things that may have offended you.
In the meantime you yourself have now aimed an anonymous ad hominem posting at me.
Since I don’t know who you are, I could care less.
Vince:
I thought I was clear that the ad hominen attack was against More, not me.
Mespo, it was not clear to me, because I never made an ad hominem attack on More. I stated facts about what he did and what happened to him. He prosecuted heretics. He was executed, rightly or wrongly, for treason. These are facts that you have not denied. Do not accuse me of an ad hominem attack, because I deny any accusation that I made such an attack on More.
Anyone here can reread my posts on More.
And, Mespo, in reviewing this thread I did find some legal confusion on your part.
You first applied criminal law terms like mens rea, even though this is purely civil matter, and no one wants to put the professor in jail.
You and gyges seemed confused about the fact that UC is a state university, and that CA is the employer, acting in its capacity as an employer. McPherson is not a private sector employee.
You seemed unaware that the vast majority of workers in our country, tens of millions of them, are employees-at-will. They have no tenure and can be let go at any time, for any reason, except for a short list of prohibited reasons, like discrimination based on race, sex or religion. They can be told to do things they dislike every single day as a condition of employment.
You claimed that “The CLE argument doesn’t hold water. The requirements are not analougous.” Most lawyers would at least agree that the laws are analogous, since both are 1) state laws that 2) mandate training 3) for public and privately employed professionals and managers. They would then argue that the case of the lawyers should be distinguished.
You said that lawyers accept the requirements of CLE’s BEFORE they enter the profession, but most lawyers know that this is untrue.
Anyone can reread these posts. There is nothing personal in this. I am just posting some legal observations.
From Inside Higher Education
Accusations and Suicides
For the second time this year, a professor at the University of Iowa has taken his own life after being accused of sexual harassment.
For the university, which also has faced a scandal involving alleged sexual assault by athletes and a devastating flood this year, the latest incident added to an unsettling semester.
On Wednesday, just a week after he was accused of sexual harassment in a lawsuit, Mark Weiger killed himself. He was a professor of music known for his oboe performances and teaching. A former student and teaching assistant’s lawsuit, filed in federal court against Weiger and the university, charged that he had a romantic relationship with another student, engaged in repeated classroom banter and touching of an inappropriate nature, and created a sexually hostile environment. According to the suit, the university conducted its own investigation of the situation last year, found Weiger had violated policies against sexual harassment, and then resolved the issue “informally.” He was found in his car, dead from carbon monoxide poisoning, with the garage door at his home closed. Authorities said he left a note.
In August, Arthur H. Miller was arrested on bribery charges and accused of telling female students that he would give them higher grades if they let him fondle their breasts. In one case, he is alleged to have grabbed and sucked on a student’s breast and then sent her an e-mail telling her that she had earned an A+. He then shot himself in a local park.
“This has been a pretty big shock. I don’t know of anything like this ever,” said Emileigh Barnes, editor in chief The Daily Iowan. Some students who knew the professors have praised them, while others have wondered what it means to have multiple high profile cases in a year, she said.
The professors’ deaths make it “hard to tell who is innocent and who is guilty,” she said. But many students are left with many questions, especially since the university hasn’t released many details about the allegations. “The university needs to give us more answers. And they may need to look at how they can protect students,” Barnes said.
Michael W. O’Hara, president of the Faculty Senate at Iowa and a professor of psychology, called the two deaths “a horrible coincidence.” He added that “sometimes in the great big wide world, events converge that are totally coincidental yet you begin to wonder if there is a pattern, and my view is that this is like having our 500-year flood. It seems inexplicable but it happened.”
O’Hara said he knew both of the professors who died, but not the specifics of their cases. He said that Weiger “had a lot of support in the music school.”
After Miller was arrested in August, the university announced that it would require all faculty members to undergo training about sexual harassment. That process is now going on.
Asked what the university should do following this latest incident, O’Hara said that “we have to separate the issue of sexual harassment from the issue of why a professor or anybody for that matter would commit suicide in the face of kind of public disclosure of something that is personally extremely embarrassing if not humiliating. Those are two different issues — people face criminal charges all the time and don’t commit suicide. It’s not an inevitable consequence.”
O’Hara added: “We have to continue on campus to educate ourselves and to be vigilant about sexual harassment and help everyone understand that as an academic community, these things aren’t to be tolerated.” At the same time, he said that the two deaths made him wonder about the treatment of “alleged perpetrators.” It is important to remember, he said, that “being accused doesn’t mean that something happened.”
When Miller was arrested and before he killed himself, the university suspended him. In the case of Weiger, university officials said that he remained “in good standing” at the time of his death. Sally Mason, president of the university, on Thursday issued a statement expressing condolences to Weiger’s family and friends, and letting people know of the availability of counseling services. She also urged people “to refrain from speculation about this event, but to support all who need assistance.”
A spokesman for the university said that officials could not comment on the allegations against Weiger because the university remains a defendant in the suit filed by his former student.
Alison Smith, the lawyer for the plaintiff in the case, said that the lawsuit would continue. She said that her client left the university after the investigation of her allegations, when she didn’t feel secure in continuing at Iowa. When she informed her client about the suicide, she was “very saddened and shocked,” Smith said.
Much of the discussion in Iowa City this week has focused on Weiger, with friends and colleagues talking about how they did not believe the allegations against him. But Smith said that the university itself found violations a year ago and said she was “concerned” about the way the case was being viewed. “We offer condolences, but it’s important that we remember that this young woman was a victim. It’s important that we focus on the whole story.”
— Scott Jaschik
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/14/iowa
VT, terrible stories, both, and I should have specifically included ’students and academics’ in my previous post – in response to this employment issue.
****
‘And finally, if there’s a system in place where someone knows they can explain to someone in a position of authority a complaint or a concern, it should never get to a point where a situation becomes severe enough, or an atmosphere pervasive enough, to impose a hostile (work/study)
environment, in the first place.
The object of the exercise is to have a policy in place that promotes MUTUAL respect.’
Patty C: Well said, Patty.