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.
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.
Bob,Esq:
He’d probably put Vince in there!
Hmm…
I wonder what Sir Thomas Moore would say about Sensitivity Training:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/previous_episodes.do?episodeid=s6/sensitivity
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
“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.
“…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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 😉