****
‘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.’

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

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.

Anyone here can reread my posts on More.

I thought I was clear that the ad hominen attack was against More, not me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are absolutely right, Jill!

It is much more like a George Wallace — standing in the schoolhouse door — moment

So what is your point?

McPherson claims that his academic freedom is at stake.

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.”

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

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.

“. . .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 . . . .”

“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.

He’d probably put Vince in there!

I wonder what Sir Thomas Moore would say about Sensitivity Training:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/previous_episodes.do?episodeid=s6/sensitivity

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

He was a brave martyr for his Catholic faith.

He has nothing to do with academic freedom.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

He may just know a smidge more than I
- or the rest of you

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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!

Do you think that they’re calling his bluff?

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.

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