Poor Prof. Alexander McPherson. A professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California at Irvine, McPherson was recently denied his academic freedom.
How, you ask, did that happen? Was he told what he had to teach in the classroom? Harrangued about work he’s published? Told that his public support for John McCain was going to get him fired? No, nothing so benign. McPherson was told that he had to attend a mandatory sexual harassment seminar along with all other employees of UC Irvine.
Clearly, he is all about sticking it to the man:
Four years ago, the governor signed Assembly Bill 1825 into law, requiring all California employers with more than 50 people to provide sexual harassment training for each of their employees. The University of California raised no objection and submitted to its authority.
But I didn’t. I am a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at UC Irvine, and I have consistently refused, on principle, to participate in the sexual harassment training that the state and my employers seem to think is so important.
Because when your employer tells you that you are required to attend a seminar as a condition of your employment, that’s completely optional, as many unemployed people can tell you.
For a while, it didn’t seem to matter much that I had refused. I (and fellow scofflaws) were periodically notified that we were not in compliance, and we were advised to get with the program like everybody else. Then the university began warning me that my supervisory responsibilities would be taken away if I did not promptly comply.
Last month, the university finally followed through, sending me a letter announcing that my laboratory and the students I oversaw were to be immediately turned over to other university officials and faculty. I continued to refuse to take sexual harassment training, and do so now.
Now, at this point, everyone who’s ever been employed by anyone is pretty much saying to themselves, “Well, duh.” I mean, all of us have been shepherded into pointless meetings on everything from ergonomics to the new 401(k) plan to why our health plan costs just jumped 43,000 percent. And when they’re mandatory, you go. You may grumble that you have better things to do; sometimes those better things are work, and sometimes it’s talking fantasy football, but whatever. You go, because the entity that’s paying you for your time has decided that for this particular hour, this is how you are going to use your time.
In this case, it’s not even McPherson’s employer saying this; it’s the people of California, through their duly elected representatives. And McPherson isn’t even part of an independent company that could argue their rights to promote harassment in the workplace are being infringed; McPherson works for the State of California. He is out of legs, arms, and any other body parts to stand on, and should probably just go to the damn seminar.
But he’s taking a bold, brave stand:
am not normally confrontational, so I sought to find a means to resolve the conflict. I proposed the following: I would take the training if the university would provide me with a brief, written statement absolving me of any suspicion, guilt or complicity regarding sexual harassment. I wanted any possible stigma removed. “Fulfilling this requirement,” said the statement I asked them to approve, “in no way implies, suggests or indicates that the university currently has any reason to believe that Professor McPherson has ever sexually harassed any student or any person under his supervision during his 30-year career with the University of California.”
The university, however, declined to provide me with any such statement, which poses the question: Why not? It is a completely innocuous, unobjectionable statement that they should have been willing to write for any faculty member whose record is as free of stain as is my own. The immediate reply of the administration was that if I didn’t comply with the law, I would be placed on unpaid leave.
Well, yeah. If my boss asks me to come to a meeting, and I tell her that I will, but only if she signs a statement saying the company does not know anything about me stealing a gross of paper clips, my guess is that not only won’t she sign, but she’ll ask me why it’s so important that I sign — and begin auditing the supply cabinet.
I’m not saying that McPherson has in fact been harassing students. But it is weird how he wants administrative cover about it, especially since he hasn’t been brought into this seminar because he’s harassing students. Indeed, he’s in the same basic seminar that every single middle-sized and bigger employer in California is running. It doesn’t get any less selective than that.
So why is it he’s so concerned that he’s somehow been singled out? And why is he so afraid to go?
So why am I am being so inflexible on this issue? Why not simply take the training and be done with it?
Yeah, that’s what I asked.
There are several reasons.
First of all, I believe the training is a disgraceful sham. As far as I can tell from my colleagues, it is worthless, a childish piece of theater, an insult to anyone with a respectable IQ, primarily designed to relieve the university of liability in the case of lawsuits. I have not been shown any evidence that this training will discourage a harasser or aid in alerting the faculty to the presence of harassment.
And he should know, because…er, he just knows it won’t be helpful. Especially since he hasn’t been through the training, and knows nothing about it. And he’s going to stand firm on this by demanding that his employer defy the law of his state, because he doesn’t like it.
Guess what, binky? There are all sorts of laws of questionable value out there, from the laws criminalizing marijuana to the recently passed repeal of basic human rights for gay and lesbian couples. If you don’t like them, though, you work to change the law. You can disobey the law too — but you can’t be surprised when it turns out that the punishments the law spelled out are applied to you.
What’s more, the state, acting through the university, is trying to coerce and bully me into doing something I find repugnant and offensive. I find it offensive not only because of the insinuations it carries and the potential stigma it implies, but also because I am being required to do it for political reasons. The fact is that there is a vocal political/cultural interest group promoting this silliness as part of a politically correct agenda that I don’t particularly agree with.
Shorter Alexander McPherson: the world was better when you could tell a freshman that her tits looked nice, and that she could guarantee herself an A if she’d just do one little thing for him.
I’m sorry, Professor, if that seems like I’m stigmatizing you. But you’re the one who’s so afraid of being told what normal adults should know — that demeaning and disrespecting people because of their gender is wrong — that you won’t even be in the same room as someone saying so. The “politically correct” argument against sexual harassment is simply that sexual harassment is wrong. If you disagree with that message, the implication is obvious. At the very least, you don’t see anything wrong with sexual harassment.
The imposition of training that has a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The university has already nullified my right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. It has threatened my livelihood and, ultimately, my position at the university. This for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at the University of California 30 years ago, nor when I came to UCI 11 years ago.
And therefore, nothing can ever change.
Look, Professor, things have changed a lot in 30 years. In 1978, it was still considered perfectly appropriate for the boys’ club to leer at women in the workplace. And some of the men who came of age at that time — i.e., you — never grew up past that point.
That’s why we have seminars like this — to let you know that 2008 is not 1978, and these things aren’t okay. Are sexual harassment seminars perfect? Of course not. But they’re taking a strong stand that says women in the workplace — and in your case, the workplace is also a school — deserve equal respect and dignity, that they should not be treated worse because of their gender.
So what’s wrong with that? Even if you think the seminar’s hokey at times, why don’t you agree with its basic premise — that women are equal?
The question contains the answer, of course.
Interestingly, I have received many letters of encouragement — about 25% of them from women. The comments have been rich with words like “demeaning,” “oppressive,” “politically driven” and “indoctrination.” Other phrases included “unctuous twaddle” and “sanctimonious half-wits.”
I’m not surprised that some women are praising this — like Dr. Helen, who naturally loves this column, there are always some who are willing to throw others under the bus to be the “good kind of girl.”
But I’m sorry, I’ve been through sexual harassment seminars. And while they were at time eye-rollingly earnest, I’ve never seen them as demeaning. I don’t harass women, though — and frankly, view it as important that I not do so inadvertently. I view that as important because I know too many of my fellow men have harassed women in the workplace for decades before I got there, and that only by my being willing to work to undo their sins can men like me help to level the playing field.
McPherson closes with a line that shows that for all his education, he has no clue what he’s talking about:
Sexual harassment is a politically charged issue. The people of California have granted no authority to the state to impose narrow political and cultural opinions on individual citizens.
Except they have; you even cited the exact bill, Assembly Bill 1825, which was passed by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of the state, and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The people of California have given that authority to the state, and said that they do in fact want the state to be tolerant of women’s rights in the workplace. Perhaps that will change some day; given that California, as we all know, has a pretty viable initiative and referendum system, McPherson could be working to get this bill’s repeal on the ballot.
But of course, such an attempt would fail, because we don’t think that women are second-class citizens, at least not so much as we once did. And while there are far too many holdovers, most of us don’t see much wrong with asking people to learn to work with others in a respectful manner. There’s a word for people who do: sexists. Which is exactly what McPherson is. And exactly why it’s good for the students at UC Irvine that he’s losing his supervisory position over this. Because I wouldn’t want my daughter working with a sexist professor. Indeed, I don’t want anyone’s daughter — or anyone’s son — working with him. Any man who would put hatred of women at such a great level of import is a person all of us are better off ignoring.
The only thing I find remotely noteworthy about this column is that the editors of the LA Times saw fit to print it.
Gosh, this is a really hard article to follow.
I can see your points Jeff …1) We all have to take these sort of seminars and our time at work is the bosses time.
But then I think about the positives of whistle blowing and think that speaking up about something that you don’t consider ethical is important. So I guess I support us being the best employees we can but be also be encouraged to speak up.
2) (this point is great) Sexual discrimination is wrong and yes, women worked hard to change things in the workplace and this is a good solution to prevent it.
But I get a bit lost on this in the article. I asked myself to consider if he would be thinking differently if the sexual harassment seminar included sexual harassment for men also.
And then I came to the conclusion that he wouldn’t do it then either. He isn’t complaining about women’s rights. He is complaining that “HE” should not have to do the seminar.
He is arguing that he has been a trusted employee for so long with a clean record and would rather be left with the trust he has earned over the years.
3) A law is a law. Very true.
But if the seminar is being used as a tool to take responsibility away from the University, he may have a valid argument that there is a catch to the seminar which could affect him negatively by law.
BTW, I don’t know this man. I am just following the article which I think is presented well enough for me to be critical.
” I asked myself to consider if he would be thinking differently if the sexual harassment seminar included sexual harassment for men also.”
And then you thought to yourself: “gosh. Maybe I should have looked that up rather than just assuming the seminar doesn’t! Since most academic sexual harrassment seminars do talk about the harrassment of both men and women, and even how harrassment can be changed based on variables like race!” Then you paused, your eyes wide and confused by this rational thing which had somehow intruded into your mentalspace, and added, “Nevermind. It’s easier just to pretend that the real sexists are women. Now. How can I defend the douchebag? I’ve got an idea…”
Mandolin, your comment comes across to me as your personal. I hadn’t meant mine from the personal.
I could only understand the sexual harassment seminar from the article’s perspective. And with your added information you can most likely tell I have not attended one. BTW, thanx for explaining.
For the record, what do you think I could have considered as a better way to determine for myself if this man was being sexist towards women (or men) or standing for something else?
Or am I just to presume automatically he is a hateful man? Or is there a certain criteria I should be following when commenting?
This guy makes me laugh, because really, the only person who is “ruining his reputation” is him. Even if he wanted to take a stand against compulsory sexual harassment training, he could have done it without spreading it all over the news, and making his foolishness visible nation-wide. Now an entire country is probably thinking that he has something to hide just based on his spurious public excuses for making such a fuss.
and julie?
Sexual harassment trainings are gender neutral for the most part, and tend to include cultural sensitivity as well. Just for the record. If the “esteemed” professor had gone to one, or if you ever had, you would know that.
I asked myself to consider if he would be thinking differently if the sexual harassment seminar included sexual harassment for men also.
I haven’t taken the California course, having never worked in California. However, having gone though a lengthy orientation process including many mandatory seminars in New Jersey (most of which passed through my cerebral cortex without doing damage to any cells involving memory formation–the sexual harassment seminar being something of an exception and one of the better seminars), I’d say that there is a very good probability that it did include sexual harassment of men. At least in the seminar I saw, most of the example violators were men, most of the example victims were women. However, examples of women harassing men, men harassing men, and women harassing women were also given. Unless the state of California is notably less enlightened than NJ, it’s highly likely that CA’s also includes varied examples.
As a slightly right leaning Libertarian. This is what I say. Counter points are OK.
Most Sexual Harrasment training is heavily beuracratized into a mush with raisins. The mush is boring and sometimes deamening to your intellegence to the point of repulsiveness. The raisins are small kernels of usefull knowledge you can take away. Personally I just want a box of raisins.
Here is the problem we have allowed the work place to become overly political. I speak from some authority having been in the Military during the Tailhook disaster. Tailhook was not just a disaster for the woman involved it was a disaster for a period after for the Military.
I was falsley accused of sexual harrasment. How do you say can I prove it was false. Because the woman I was supposedly harrassing had no knowledge that charges had been filed. When she found out she became my best advocate. It took the action of me requesting a full Courts Martial and the threat of exposing a lot more dirt to make the command back off.
You see it was a politically popular and easy bag. I was not popular with a small subsection of the senior command. If I had been the only one this had happened to I would say “OK bad luck for me” I won but it cost me and thems the breaks. But we can all relate to being screwed by the current political fashion.
I will say however to the professor, “you work for the State of California, are you stupid”. California is known as a progressive state (though some here are progressive to the point of not thinking so.)
It is known that part of a progressive agenda is political, and cultural re-education. If you want to work for the state and take their coin then shut up and keep your opinions among only a very thight and closed mouthed group of friends.
I work for a company, I take their coin. If I don’t like something I protest, if it gsts above a certain level I find a job elswhere. Up until the day I leave the most I will ever be is a loyal employee with a problem. This professor crossed that line and therfore deserves to go.
Steve
Steve,
Do you really think that allowing people to work without being harassed based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc., is a matter of “political correctness”? Regardless of those people’s individual rights or the legal repercussions, as an employer I would be concerned about the time wasted and the increase of bad feeling among my employees that makes them less effective workers. This is one thing on which the Republicans I know agree with Catharine MacKinnon on: “Somebody ought to get worried about the fact that no work is getting done.”
julie,
I think your inexperience in the area of sex harassment is coming through in your effort to participate in this discussion.
First, you compare his complaint about the seminar to someone’s whistle-blowing on unethical activities by an employer — but you don’t explain what is unethical about having employees participate in a seminar.
Second, you say that he merely is arguing that he ought to be trustworthy and that requiring him to participate in a seminar marks him as untrusted. Yet every attorney in the state of New York (and in most other states) is required to take a course on professional ethics, to achieve a passing grade on the exam testing material from the course, and then to take a certain number of hours in continuing legal education on the topic of ethics every year in order maintain standing as an attorney. The state is not saying that we all are unworthy of trust; on the contrary, attorneys inherently stand in a position of huge fiduciary responsibility and trust with both their clients and the state itself. Attorneys routinely are entrusted not only with confidential information and the expectation that they will act to their clients’ benefits, but also with assets put into escrow or into accounts on a minor’s behalf. It is precisely *because* we are in a position of trust that the state demands that we understand what is expected of us. Professors also stand in a position of trust, and their employers therefore want to ensure that they understand what that position entails.
Third, you argue, “But if the seminar is being used as a tool to take responsibility away from the University, he may have a valid argument that there is a catch to the seminar which could affect him negatively by law.”
This is true, but possibly not in the sense that you mean. By mandating that everyone take this course, the University protects itself from the accusation, when it later seeks to fire employees for violating the rule against harassment, that the employee didn’t know his behavior was against the rules. This too is comparable to the education requirements put on attorneys; states cannot disbar attorneys for behavior that is not clearly against the rules. There was a recent infamous case in which an attorney was in what most might call a menage a trois with his client and with the client’s girlfriend. However, because the attorney technically never engaged in sex with the client directly — he’d only touched the client’s girlfriend — the attorney hadn’t violated the rule against sex with a client and therefore couldn’t be disbarred on this ground.
An interesting question is how it is affected by university culture. the “politically correct” issues related to harassment and training courses most likely arose out of the fact that some (not all) academic institutions take unusually broad views of what constitutes harassment and punishable behavior. (note that i am talking about whether behavior is actionable, not whether behavior is good or bad.)
My own belief is that a university’s attitude towards sexual harassment training at the instructor level is likely to have at least some connection to its treatment of interpersonal relations at the student level. So I checked thefire.org to see what the UC Irvine speech codes were for students.
As it happens, the speech codes aren’t bad at all, and seem a pretty close match for what i believe is the legal standard for harassment. So in that light, this professor has little to complain about, and is just being a fool.
That said, for those who believe on a general level that any and all complaints about overly broad harassment codes are made up or inappropriate, thefire.org is an interesting read. Universities (even public ones) can be pretty overbearing at times–this isn’t one of those times, though, as far as I can tell.
Huh. Guess my post is gone.
Anyway, it occurred to me that this might possibly be a case where a university had really overreached in terms of their speech codes. Those apply to students, generally, but in my opinion they serve as a good indicator of the university’s approach to harassment. A university with reasonable speech codes can probably be assumed to have reasonable harassment policies and training; a university with unreasonable speech codes can probably be assumed to have less reasonable harassment policies and training.
So I checked UC Irvine’s speech codes at thefire.org and… they’re not problematic.* In fact, they look to me to be a pretty good statement of the laws regarding harassment. So this appears to be a case of assholery, in which the man concerned is trying to convince the public that his school is full of PC nuts, when in fact the school is quite reasonable.
*for those who believe that harassment and speech policies can never be overbroad and/or “politically correct,” check out some of the doozies at thefire.org.
“For the record, what do you think I could have considered as a better way to determine for myself if this man was being sexist towards women (or men) or standing for something else?
Or am I just to presume automatically he is a hateful man? Or is there a certain criteria I should be following when commenting?”
Commenting from information, rather than ignorance, is a good start. If you don’t know what’s going on, find out rather than making poor assumptions and presenting them as facts.
If he has tenure, he may have a contract that may make it very difficult to stop paying him.
If he has tenure, he’s doing a very good job of mucking it up by violating state law. I know that if I had tenure and if I were required by my employer to attend some meeting that I don’t particularly like, I will still attend. Why? Because I want to ensure that it looks like I am willing to learn more about society and isn’t that what tenure is for – to allow professors the freedom to learn more about their fields of study?
If you violate the law or do something horribly wrong (yes, this professor should be investigated, no argument from me) you should lose your tenure. Period. There are many people who would do anything for tenure – myself included, and I don’t even have an undergrad degree yet – much less a PhD.
Jeff, you make a number of excellent points as to why this professor’s assertions as to why he shouldn’t have to take this training and why his assertions that the law should support his viewpoint are foolish. I agree with the points you’ve made. However, then you go off on this:
And while there are far too many holdovers, most of us don’t see much wrong with asking people to learn to work with others in a respectful manner. There’s a word for people who do: sexists. Which is exactly what McPherson is. And exactly why it’s good for the students at UC Irvine that he’s losing his supervisory position over this. Because I wouldn’t want my daughter working with a sexist professor. Indeed, I don’t want anyone’s daughter — or anyone’s son — working with him.
This professor is apparently of the opinion that having to sit through a seminar on sexual harassment is demeaning and insulting to him because he has never actually done any sexual harassment. I disagree with his opinion. However, his viewpoint from what I can tell is based on the concept that he has demonstrated as shown by his employment record that he has already learned how to work with other people in a respectful fashion. I fail to see where you have any evidence that he does not think that people should have to learn such a thing or that he has ever acted in a sexist fashion – where at any point he’s ever sexually harassed anyone or is in favor of treating women as second class citizens. What support do you have for the assertions you have made about him?
And I’m not quite sure what you mean by “Any man who would put hatred of women at such a great level of import is a person all of us are better off ignoring.” Do you mean that you think he values hating women? Where did you get this from?
Admittedly, McPherson doesn’t seem like the best advocate for his own cause. Rather than pick at his amply-displayed foibles, could we discuss the issue more broadly?
Traditionally the Fourth Amendment – one of the foundations of the “right of privacy” – barred state agents from subjecting people from searches without some individualized cause for suspicion. Thus, the state could intrude upon people’s privacy to seek to detect (and perhaps avert) efforts to commit a crime, including the crime of sexual harassment, but only with respect to people the state had individual cause to suspect. The Fourth Amendment would bar the state from engaging in blanket “dragnet” searches of entire population on the chance that they might engage in a crime.
Should people have a privacy right to ignorance? That is, should the state have the authority to compel people in general, without any individualized cause for suspicion, to undergo indoctrinations for the purpose of avoiding a crime? And more to the point, when people refuse indoctrination on the grounds that submitting would offend their world view – their religion, if you will — what sanctions may the state impose?
Admittedly, the relationship here is not merely one of citizen/state, but one of employee/employer. But even that characterization is inadequate, because the state has granted to this employee tenure – an institution designed for the express purpose of defending autonomy.
Well, to refine this further, the state university granted tenure; the state legislature imposed the obligation to provide the training. Arguably these two institutions have different, and perhaps conflicting, roles to play.
Regarding the statute, arguably the university has already complied by providing the training, even if faculty members decline to participate. And even if the university concluded that the statute imposed some obligation for faculty to attend the training, arguably the university could refuse to act, letting other administrative agencies enforce the relevant sanctions. After all, the statute expressly provides for some commission to compel compliance with the training. And other statutes provide for the police to enforce statutes against any actual harassment.
How does this situation compare with the state’s right to compel Amish kids to learn contemporary views of cosmology, or compel religiously conservative kids to learn sex ed, even if doing so violates their world views? How does this situation compare to compelling a pregnant woman to undergo a narrated ultrasound from her doctor before having an abortion, even if she’d rather not?
nobody.really,
Admittedly, the relationship here is not merely one of citizen/state, but one of employee/employer. But even that characterization is inadequate, because the state has granted to this employee tenure – an institution designed for the express purpose of defending autonomy.
I think you, like McPherson, have an over-broad concept of tenure. Tenure is not for the professor to have some total autonomy over his time and energy. It is solely for him to have some degree of intellectual autonomy, so that he does not have to fear that his research on an unpopular topic will get him fired. For example, I would say that tenure exists to protect an academic who wants to study genetic differences between people of different races, or IQ differences between men and women. This is where it is accurate to say that “political correctness” can be any kind of obstruction to the pursuit of knowledge: if we say that some things ought not be studied because we already have decided on the answers or we don’t want to know the answers.
However, McPherson’s idea that he should be protected by tenure or academic freedom from having to perform certain tasks as part of his job is ludicrous.
Thanx for the comments back from those who gave words of enlightenment.
This is a good group discussion site. How wonderful. (thanx also Mandolin for your advice on how it works)
I am going to take the professors side on this with more thinking and understanding.
I can’t comprehend why he would risk so much and be more than capable of understanding he should keep silent …. so there must be more to it. And tenure isn’t usually the ideal peak professors work towards. Sure it pays the bills, but these people usually have far greater goals. Some or most (not sure on the numbers) work mainly for money to research. This guy’s chosen field is biochemistry and molecular biology. Not something you do for a weekly pay packet only.
OK, I wish I could put some great sites forward from Universities themselves over the controversial of the newest form of rape. The grey rape. It just came to me while reading other comments.
OK, nothing new about this type of rape but I have read articles over the past year where faculty has been in passive aggressive discussion over students, alcohol and sex. It has become a really big deal.
Universities are somewhat different from the real world. Students are enjoying themselves while studying hard through some of the best years of their lives. Almost like a world within a world.
Sorry not to give great links to University discussion but I think there is much to consider from this voice and this one may be a start.
http://tinyurl.com/6pajzd
On another note: To Steve @ 7,
I am sorry to hear of your story. This is the 3rd wave of rape crisis. The last 2 were very costly.
1) PG @ 16 – indeed, if I worked at a university with tenure, and had achieved tenure, the university could not tell me “you may not research gay and lesbian mental health because it is controversial.” But they could tell me “you must teach X number of quarter/semester units per year, you must generally hew to the catalog description of core classes you teach, you must attend weekly faculty meetings, and you must serve on committees as assigned by your program chair or dean.” Tenure exempts me from none of those things, nor does it exempt me from required university trainings, be they fire/disaster preparedness, orientation to university IT services, or sexual harassment trainings.
2) I have been through university sexual harassment trainings at 3 universities in the past several years as part of adjunct and core faculty positions. Two of the three were online, and didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know (having helped write such trainings in the past) other than what this particular employer’s process is for submitting or responding to harassment complaints.
The third was a group training in person, and it left me seething because 3/4 of the discussion time was taken up by older male professors looking for some kind of guarantee about how they could never ever be accused of inappropriate behavior. “Well what if I always leave my door open during office hours?” “Well what if I never meet with a student unless it’s during scheduled office hours?” “Well what if I refuse to meet with female students alone?” (the staff failed to point out that suggestion #3 would constitute *discrimination*, so I helpfully piped up from the back.) They were also there to complain: “Well I can’t even pay anoyone a compliment anymore!”
Basically, these guys were not there to absorb any information. They were not interested in the fact that the most well-intentioned person in the world can, unwittingly, make someone else feel uncomfortable or sexualized, particularly if that person has less power than they do, when there are cultural differences between the two people, and/or when the second person is of a gender the first person is known to be interested in (yes, it covered same-sex sexual harassment and very well in fact). If these guys had paid attention, they might have learned how to prevent accusations they’d consider “false” if they were to come to light! Simply by thinking about how they come off to students and colleagues, checking in with others to make sure they’re comfortable, and considering the impact of their words and actions, they could take great strides to prevent the thing they feared. But they were more interested in dwelling on the exception to the norm – blatantly trumped-up charges – than on the norm itself. And worse still, the facilitators let them.
I had a fairly long talk with the lead facilitator afterwards, particularly about what it felt like to be an attendee at that training who had, in the past, been sexually harassed by a professor when I was an undergraduate.
Personally, I’d almost be inclined to say to those types “Fine. The training is optional. But if you don’t take it, we will automatically consider any accusation against you to default in favor of the accuser, considering your stance of willful ignorance of the law and our policies, and we will not use university funds to mount any defense of you or to pay any settlment against you.” This seems reasonably fair, with only one problem: there is always a human being on the other side of a harassment accusation, and no one should have to endure any level of harassment or discrimination, even if it’s to teach a lesson to the terminally self-absorbed and privileged.
3) Julie – by bringing up rape, and using the offensive term “grey rape,” in a thread about sexual harassment training, you are either further demonstrating your ignorance on the topic, or you are trolling.
It doesn’t matter if the supervisors mandated to take 1825 training have never done any sexual harassing. It’s about teaching newly hired or promoted supervisors to recognize it and how to handle complaints by subordinate employees that they are supervising and about sexual harassment law. It’s required every two years.
It’s the law that they have to take it. And any institution or company that has people not trained in this law may face paying out more money on litigation that’s filed involving sexual harassment allegations. You can’t sue public or private entities that don’t have this training in place and implemented but any sexual harassment lawsuits will be eligible for higher financial payouts if there’s no full compliance.
It’s supposed to be gender neutral. I spoke with someone attending a public government supervisor session and he said it was.
I requested information on training sessions and dates for the supervisors in my city’s law enforcement agency. I was a bit dismayed to discover that only 3 out of 13 of the new supervisors (in this case, sergeants) had gotten their initial training within the time period allotted. For some, it took up to two years to receive it after their promotions. And record requests for any prior sexual harassment training for supervisors that was pre-1825 weren’t fruitful. They’re doing an inhouse audit on female officers due to very poor retention records for them and I’m hoping that sexual harassment is one area that will be examined but am not counting on that. I wish that field training officers would be included under this law because they do have a supervisor role albeit a more limited one and the director of the volunteer program.
Elusis, what part of Tenure is not for the professor to have some total autonomy over his time and energy. made you think that I am not aware that universities can dictate a tenured professor’s teaching load or trainings?
Elusis @ comment 18.
I need to come back to this later.
I’m not correcting you, PG, I’m adding to your thought. Sorry if that was unclear.
If these guys had paid attention, they might have learned how to prevent accusations they’d consider “false” if they were to come to light! Simply by thinking about how they come off to students and colleagues, checking in with others to make sure they’re comfortable, and considering the impact of their words and actions, they could take great strides to prevent the thing they feared. But they were more interested in dwelling on the exception to the norm – blatantly trumped-up charges – than on the norm itself. And worse still, the facilitators let them.
These guys aren’t worried about misunderstandings. They’re worried about malicious accusations. Sure, they’re quite rare. But that’s the general case. The specific case is that when you’re accused you’re pretty much considered guilty until proven innocent in at least the court of public opinion. A single accusation can ruin your career. It’s kind of like 50 guys charging one guy with a rifle with a single bullet. The odds are 49:1 against getting shot, but everyone stops because no one wants to be the one. These guys aren’t talking about the main part of the curriculum not because they think sexual harassment is O.K. but because they figure they’re not doing it. Sure, maybe they’re wrong. But sit in their seat with your career on the line and see what you worry about.
Every two years I have to take “Youth Protection” training. The overall concepts are how to ensure that there is never an opportunity for a child to be sexually harassed in the Scouting program, how to recognize the signs that a child is being abused outside the program (say, at home) and how to report any incidents or suspicions. The training starts out by presuming that everyone there has absolutely no intention of abusing kids and goes into how you can avoid being falsely accused of such. But you avoid it by removing any opportunity to actually do so, so the desired end for both parties is reached; kids aren’t abused, and falsely accused adults will have clear evidence that the accusation is in fact false.
We have anti-racism training in my Diocese. Anyone who is going to fill a Diocesean-level position, committee membership, etc. has to take it. I’ve heard both positive and negative feedback about it. The thrust of the negative feedback is that it does NOT assume that people have good intentions – that it presumes that people are racist and need to be taught not to be. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know, as I’ve not taken the course myself. I’ve not heard people who favor the training attempt to refute the point. But I think that’s where the resentment of these courses comes from – they think that the training presumes that they are guilty of such a thing (racism, sexism, etc.) and that they therefore need to be taught differently. If it was presented from the viewpoint of “We don’t think you’re racist/sexist/a pederast, but here’s how to make sure you’re not perceived that way” it might help.
Elusis @ 18:
[shrug] I have give some people advice on harassment. If they are in a contentious position where they are reasonably likely to be in a position of conflict (grading, hiring/firing, etc) then they need to be more careful than if they are in a more ordinary position.
With harassment, like racism, it is a perfectly valid request for people to try to figure out exactly where the line is drawn to be sure that they do not inadvertently cross it. When those in favor of anti-harassment or anti-racism training mock people who try to ask questions about the line, it makes no sense. Similarly, if you condescend towards people who effectively say “hell, this is confusing, I am just going to try to stay out of the area completely” then you are going to make harassment MORE likely, not LESS likely.
The problem is specificity. If you tell someone they will be disciplined, accused, or brought on charges for doing Behavior X, then you should damn well expect to be able to tell then what Behavior X is. And you should expect them to ask questions on it. And you should expect that if they don’t really get the definition but understand the consequences of violating the rule… well, then they will give X a wide berth, and probably avoid some behavior which would be perfectly fine.
In fact, they may fear the consequences of violation so much* that they end up exhibiting behaviors which are counterproductive to your goal. So they may fear being accused of racism, and may disengage from POC colleagues and students. They may fear being accused of harassment, and may find reasons and excuses not to mentor, hire, or be alone with members of the opposite sex.
You think it is a bizarre reaction to “never be alone with a female student?” I think it is a perfectly normal and logical reaction from someone who doesn’t understand the boundaries very well, and wants to avoid them.
*And before someone says that’s unreasonable: Bull. Everyone is entitled to make their own value weightings. You may think that Joe Dude is giving too much weight to a feared accusation of harassment; Joe Dude may think that you are giving too much weight to his Maxim calendar. You can’t impose objective rules only on accused harassers.
Joe Dude may think that you are giving too much weight to his Maxim calendar
This is the sort of thing that puzzles me. What are we doing in our schools that we have workers who believe that work is merely an extension of home and thus whatever they would say or do at home is acceptable for the workplace? Am I the only person whose parents inculcated the concept of the distinction between how we are at home and how we are outside the home?
With harassment, like racism, it is a perfectly valid request for people to try to figure out exactly where the line is drawn to be sure that they do not inadvertently cross it.
But this assumes that there are bright lines, which there aren’t. One student might appreciate that his professor notices that he’s lost weight and been working out over the course of the semester, as a friendly recognition that the student is a human being and not just a brain at a desk. Another student might feel uncomfortable at being treated as anything besides a brain at a desk.
Fortunately, most employers I’ve encountered don’t punish employees for a single complaint. Instead, their procedures ask that the person who is offended first say so to the offender, if possible. If the offended person is in an inferior position or otherwise doesn’t feel OK with directly talking to the offender about it, there are third parties through whom the message can be communicated. The offender thus is made aware that this particular person doesn’t like any kind of personal comments, and refrains in the future.
Or, if the offender is a whiny rude jerk, he disregards a stated preference as somehow oppressive to his rights.
Sadly, we do expect adults to be capable of being alert to whether they are causing discomfort to others. Outside the workplace, this generally is called “good manners.”
And this doesn’t make you a bit uncomfortable in the context of punishment? It does for me. I understand this isn’t a constitutional issue, but I think it is reasonable for people to want to understand exactly what it is they’re being told to avoid.
I have known a variety of people who have been accused of various things. Without even needing to take a position on whether or not the accusations were correct, I can see that the accusations alone are quite damaging, and that a finding of not guilty or “no harm done” is far from sufficient to undo the accusation.
So people want to avoid the accusation, not just the eventual verdict. To use a legal analogy, they want to be able to dismiss the case or win on summary judgment. That is a fair thing to want. And in order to do that, they need to know what the rules are.
“Most” is a problem. Would you bet your reputation on a “most?” We can trade anecdotes if you want, but I certainly know of employers who take a very different view, and who punish quickly. I suppose that any employer who stated a “first time free!” rule as an official aspect of their policy would be excused in my view from having to be specific. But if not, why force people to guess?
On that note, it is also possible that your experience has been colored by your personal experience: you’re female, right? Certainly, discrimination claims tend to be more successful when they go up the privilege ladder, than down. Ask a plaintiff’s lawyer whether they would rather have a claim from a black female against a white male, or the reverse. (I would do it myself, if i was advising an employer about liability concerns. People and situations don’t look the same before juries.)
I am not saying that all employers need to set a bright line. I just think it is entirely unreasonable for employers to refuse to define things clearly AND ALSO to be upset when people ask for clearer definitions. It is similarly unreasonable to refuse to define clearly and simultaneously be upset about the predictable consequences of blurry definitions.
julie,
Take a break from commenting and read for a while. On this thread and the other you participated in, you’ve been (presumably inadvertently) quite offensive, and your arguments have a tendency to wander off-topic while not making their point clear. If you’re just new to blogs and blog discussions, maybe reading some more will help you sharpen your critical thinking and expository skills.
I’m saying this as a moderator of this site. Try commenting again in a few weeks when you’re more familiar with political blogs in generla, and this one in particular.
Sailorman,
And this doesn’t make you a bit uncomfortable in the context of punishment?
When the “punishment” is at worst being fired from a job? No, not really. There isn’t a “bright line” in my job about the correct time to come to work for non-support staff (i.e. for attorneys). The general idea is that one ought to be here before 10am at the latest, unless one is sick. However, if someone persistently comes in right before 10am, thereby missing meetings that occasionally will be called for 9:45 am half an hour before the meeting is to occur (it’s a small office), then that person isn’t picking up on what he ought to be doing, even if he hasn’t explicitly been told that he ought to be here at 9:30am every single day. That person’s behavior warrants a reprimand. If the behavior persists, it warrants being fired.
Is knowing that you need to be attuned to your environment, and to sometimes unwritten and even unspoken expectations, just something peculiar to working in the private sector? (I admit that I’ve never been a government employee in any capacity.) To me, it’s like the good manners thing: the rules aren’t all written down somewhere, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable to expect the average adult to be able to cope with behaving in a polite and situation-appropriate way.
If the employer doesn’t even give a reprimand but goes straight to firing for a behavior that is not explicitly prohibited, then that employer is behaving unreasonably. Can you name an employer who does that?
Why are you using an example which arises outside the sphere of our discussion? let’s stick to harassment.
The reality is that when Jill gets accused of harassing behavior, everyone involved would be better off to be able to identify simply and easily whether the behavior is banned.
Jill wants to know–maybe she would have done things differently, maybe not. Maybe she would have broken the rule anyway, maybe not. But if she’s innocent she wants to clear her name. Maybe she wouldn’t have chosen to work there at all, if she didn’t like the policies.
The accuser wants to know. Maybe the accusation would never have been made, if the accuser knew it wasn’t a rule violation. Maybe the accuser would have chosen to go somewhere with a more stringent policy, if things aren’t to the accuser’s satisfaction.
The employer wants to know. What the heck are they supposed to do? Now they have to make a decision without a clear guideline. It’s made even worse if Jill is in a protected class, and/or if the accuser is in a protected class. Did Jill break a rule? If so, did she do so knowingly or unknowingly? If the accusation is not a rule violation, did the accuser know that beforehand; were they just trying to mess up Jill’s career?
What possible benefit is there to deliberately obscuring the rule?
Sailorman,
Why are you using an example which arises outside the sphere of our discussion? let’s stick to harassment.
Because you’re saying that if there is the possibility of punishment, there should be bright lines rules so people can avoid the punishment. That is no less true for any other area of employee behavior than for harassment. You may not want to acknowledge that we accept non-bright line rules in life, but we do, and you haven’t articulated why this should be less true for harassment than for aything else.
Inflexible, bright line rules impose their own costs. For example, if there is a bright line rule that religion cannot be mentioned in one’s workplace, then such a rule prohibits my mentioning that I have to leave early for the Thanksgiving holiday to ensure that I reach home before midnight Wednesday, because in the Hindu astrological calendar Thursday is an unpropitious day to bring a new family member to the home. It also means that I can’t discuss my wedding with co-workers.
In contrast, an environment in which principles of respect, tolerance and courtesy are upheld is conducive to employees’ being able to be honest about demands on their time and to form amiable relationships with one another.
What possible benefit is there to deliberately obscuring the rule?
You seem to believe that there is The Rule that is known to some people who are cruelly hiding it from hapless others. I don’t think this is correct. There aren’t specific rules; there are values of respect, tolerance and courtesy. If you read Miss Manners, you’ll discover this is true even among formal practitioners of excruciatingly correct behavior — they prioritize being sensitive to others well above following some “rule.”
yeah, Miss Manners isn’t what i am talking about here.
I am talking about the fact that every time people discuss harassment, some folks always diss on people for the fact that they want to know more. If it happens in rape conversations, you’re “trying to find out how to rape people.” If it happens in harassment you’re trying to find out how to harass people. if it happens in cultural appropriation or race you’re “trying to find out how racist you can be” or some such shit.
Or, to use your example, it’s like telling someone “just be mannerly!” while assuming that they know what good manners are, and that their good manners don’t conflict with yours.
THAT particular meme is what Elusis raised when s/he said
And THAT particular meme is so freakin’ annoying to me that I decided to write on it.
Sailorman,
some folks always diss on people for the fact that they want to know more
That’s not what Elusis was describing. Someone who genuinely wanted to know more about sex harassment in order to avoid creating hurt or offense would not be asking questions about “If I leave the door open, I never can be accused of harassment, right?” Instead, he would be asking, “What are the signs I should be watching for to ensure that I don’t make my students — male or female — uncomfortable?” That’s genuinely wanting to know more, instead of just wanting to be given a guarantee against being accused or penalized for harassment.
Or for your racism example, someone who genuinely cares about whether she is insensitive to others won’t ask for a list of prohibited words and think, “Hey, ‘dot-head’ isn’t on here! I’m clear to keep calling my Indian students that!” Instead, she will want to talk to people and explore the kinds of behaviors that bother them.
People doing what Elusis described don’t want to know more, they just want a pass on ever having to think critically about their own behavior.
What’s the problem with that?
I think Sailorman has a very good point. This sort of thing – like sexual harrassment training and rape prevention training – basically has a dual purpose: (1) is the practical aim of reducing the offending behavour, and (2) is a political exercise aimed at raising consciousness and futhering the cause.
There’s nothing wrong with that. But you can’t demand people’s hearts and minds. There are people who don’t want to become politically engaged and commit to feminist view of the world. I don’t think that’s objectionable, some people would just like to get on with their jobs and lives. If they just want a simple set of rules to follow in order so that they don’t harrass someone, I can’t see what the problem is. I can’t see what’s objectionable about taking a functional view of things.
PG – your last comment is it *exactly*. Curious people who genuinely agree that it’s in everyone’s best interest that harassment not occur ask process questions – what would I do if I started to worry a student felt uncomfortable with me? how can I connect with my students as people while making it clear that I respect them and the boundaries of our professional relationship? – etc. Obviously the tone and demeanor of the gents I was describing can’t be well-captured in text, but it was crystal clear to me that they were oozing resentment over having to be there, they considered themselves automatically in the clear of any potentially questionable behavior, and they wanted a rubber stamp from the HR reps about how to never be accused of anything, ever.
Sailorman and james – there is no bright line because as has already been pointed out, one person’s “friendly comment” is another person’s icky experience. I would not ever want HR to tell me “never ever ever comment on someone else’s appearance, and if you do, you’ll be reprimanded.” But I’m glad they have a harassment policy that includes the possibility that if comments are intrusive or inappropriate, and this is brought to the commenter’s attention but they don’t stop, there is likely to be a reprimand or other consequences.
Where things get hung up is when someone (either the receiver or HR) says to the commenter “your comments are coming off as intrusive and inappropriate; you need to stop” and the commenter says “well *I* don’t think they are!” and then gets angry and resentful and goes off on “well how was I SUPPOSED TO KNOW???”
To which the answer is:
1) you should have learned to empathize with others’ differing perspectives somewhere along the line as a grownup
2) failing that, you received training on the topic
3) failing that, you have now been clearly told and thus are no longer in the dark, so cut it out.
Trust me, having standards that are process-oriented (how is this interaction perceived between these specific people at this specific time and place) rather than content-oriented (what is this behavior and is it on a checklist) benefits you and everyone else.
My posts keep disappearing for some reason, and not into moderation either. Weird.
Pg and Elusis: “Genuinely?” in whose mind–yours? mine? The nonexistent “PC Police,” whoever they may be?
Look, so now it’s not enough to ask. it’s not enough to want to know more. You have to want to know more for the right ‘genuine’ reasons.
Do you see how this is getting a bit ridiculous? It’s layer upon layer of middling undefined “genuine” and “mannerly” and discretion. Y’all seem happy to hang your hat on broad interpretations and discretion. Don’t we all know that discretion has been used to screw over people since time immemorial?
Sailorman,
We gave examples of the kind of questions that people who “want to know more” about harassment would ask. We contrasted them with the questions Elusis witnessed being asked, which were questions that focused on getting a pass on one’s behavior so long as one followed a specific rule, like “always keep the door open.” We have described how a difference in attitude will manifest itself in a difference in the questions one asks — and thus is not about “wanting to know for the right ‘genuine’ reasons,” but actually a huge difference in the substantive information one seeks — but you seem terribly resistant to engaging with what we’re actually saying instead of what you believe we’re saying.
james,
Did you see my comment above about how inflexible, bright line rules impose costs? On the one hand, if the employer is too narrow in drawing lines, there will be behavior that does create problems, but then the offender can refuse to change on the grounds that he’s just following the rules. On the other hand, a new professor aspiring to tenure whose highest priority is avoiding an accusation of harassment can wall himself off from engagement with his colleagues and students, thereby guaranteeing that he’ll never be considered to have harassed anyone. He will thus also miss out on what can be gained from such engagement: popularity among students (reflected in teaching evaluations) and collegiality with his colleagues (reflected in their willingness to help his work and career).
People can make these choices for themselves, but the employer isn’t going to impose them. And frankly, someone who suffers from a social disorder that impairs her from being sensitive to people’s signals and unable to gauge what makes others uncomfortable may thereby end up penalized by having to be over-cautious. For those without such a documented condition, however, the unwillingness to put some thought into how one interacts with others just comes across as lazy — which is hardly a desirable attribute in any employee.
There are people who don’t want to become politically engaged and commit to feminist view of the world.
I don’t understand why this seems so politicized to y’all. My parents are Republicans and they taught us consideration for others’ feelings. (Indeed, I thought it was liberals who were caricatured as the “do what feels good regardless of how others feel about it” crowd.) Have good manners really fallen so far out of fashion that they’re now seen as belonging solely to one political view?
Curious people who genuinely agree that it’s in everyone’s best interest that harassment not occur ask process questions – what would I do if I started to worry a student felt uncomfortable with me? how can I connect with my students as people while making it clear that I respect them and the boundaries of our professional relationship? – etc. Obviously the tone and demeanor of the gents I was describing can’t be well-captured in text, but it was crystal clear to me that they were oozing resentment over having to be there, they considered themselves automatically in the clear of any potentially questionable behavior, and they wanted a rubber stamp from the HR reps about how to never be accused of anything, ever.
Unless, of course, they figured that they actually UNDERSTOOD what the course had taught them about process, but found that it was deficient in instruction on procedure. IIRC this kind of training is not just “How to treat people with respect” but also “Here’s the law and here’s what’ll happen to you if you violate it.” The context of the latter definitely leads to legitimate questions of the details of what comprises a violation and how to avoid it.
There are people who don’t want to become politically engaged and commit to feminist view of the world.
I was unaware that the purpose of sexual harassment training was to promulgate a feminist view of the world. I thought it’s purpose was to train people on what sexual harassment was and how to avoid doing it. You start requiring people to take training on what to think and what specific world view and political philophies to adopt and I cross over the line from “take the training and try to get something out of it” to “this is a First Amendment violation” (certainly in the context of having it required by a public employer) and that people are right to oppose having to take it.
At heart, I think it’s an issue of what you are willing to impose.
You want people not only not to do the right thing, but (apparently) you want them to do it for the ‘right’ reasons.
So do I. I want that, though I am aware that my own personal “right” reasons are probably not the same as yours.
The difference is that I am only willing to impose the former, while you seem willing to impose the latter.
I don’t really give a shit if people act legally because they just don’t want to get busted. Usually, I am just happy that they act legally. Big problems before small, and all that: if you want to lecture to a room of law-abiders about morality that’s fine, but I am more concerned with getting Johnny to stop beating his wife, than I am with convincing Billy (who doesn’t beat his wife) that he should not only continue his behavior with respect to his wife, but should strive to develop the proper motivations for the behavior.
In fact, I think that once Billy isn’t beating his wife, and isn’t breaking any laws or rules, the government and/or employer have no fucking right at all to care what Billy thinks or doesn’t think. From my perspective getting to the point where you get to say “OK, I’m in the circle, now go away and bother someone else” is a huge benefit. So unsurprisingly, people want to go there.
“What do we do?” “What do we need to avoid?” “What, exactly, must we not say at all costs?” These are statements made by people who are trying to avoid the eyes of authority. They want to do what the law requires and be left alone. Why not?
I think that generally speaking, we can just barely manage to agree as a society what should and should not be legal. I think that when we go beyond legalities into moralities that things go to shit. And as a result I think it’s a scary thing when societies not only start trying to mandate what, but also to mandate why, people do things.
You really want to hang your hat on cluster majorities? Groups of people exercising their power in a limited setting? You want to make it OK for to require this kind of morality in a university setting? Sure… but you’re simultaneously signing on to letting other cluster majorities in other settings make some really scary moral rules.
I guess I am a bit shocked at the swing of the pendulum. Didn’t the last century teach us how dangerous it is for government to get into the morality game? Weren’t liberals against that? Why do we/you have such a degree of hubris to think it’ll be any better now?
Sailorman,
I think that when we go beyond legalities into moralities that things go to shit.
Yes, I believe I’ve heard that one from the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — you can’t legislate morality. No, but we can legislate that you treat people “morally,” even if you despise them the whole time. Sex harassment is a form of discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The workplace that permits it to occur is civilly liable, and therefore workplaces alert their employees not to engage in harassment (on racial, religious and other grounds as well). I’m really OK with that. I’m sorry if you’re not.
You’ve spent quite a lot of time and words on how awful it is for Elusis to be annoyed by someone’s asking questions, not about how to avoid actually harassing people — he doesn’t care about that — he just wants to avoid ever getting into trouble for it. These questions aren’t somehow prohibited by law. Indeed, Elusis noted that the people running the program had more patience for such efforts to avoid actually understanding what harassment is and how it works, in favor of getting a magic wand that ensures they can’t get into trouble for harassing because see, they left the door open!
Yet you go off on a long plaint about how her annoyance means that she is “imposing morality” on people, instead of recognizing that she is annoyed by how completely people are missing the point of a training on how to behave in the workplace. Has she or anyone else advocated forcing such people to adopt beliefs that they don’t hold? (How would this happen? Chinese brainwashing techniques? I better go check my CIA manual…)
I don’t think so. Instead, we’re just exasperated that some folks are too hung up on being able to do whatever they want regardless of how it affects others, and to be able to do this without even a whisper of consequences, to actually listen when someone is trying to explain a concept to them.
You apparently believe that sex harassment training should accept all participants as the Holmesian bad man, just looking for how much he can get away with before stubbing his toe on the law. I don’t know of any training that does that. Most institutions with significant public responsibilities — the military, the legal profession, the medical profession, police officers, etc. — try to train their members to be not only legal, but also ethical. Why is it that academics ought to be excused from this?
Mandolin @27, Yes, I will do as you suggest. Reading would help for a while.
Actually, it sounds like there is a bright line there, even if it’s not a written or stated rule: showing up after 9:30 may mean that you miss early-morning meetings, and so all employees ought to show up around 9:30, though they’ll likely be forgiven an occasional transgression.
The discussion between Elusis and Sailorman is interesting to me. I wonder if, in part, the behavior in question (asking legalistic questions about avoiding accusations of sexual harassment instead of asking theoretical questions about the basis and underpinnings of sexual harassment) might stem from a difference in learning styles, too? Some people learn better when they have concrete examples to consider, and this can lead to a (sometimes annoying) “probing” of the limits of a rule: “How about this? Ok, how about this?”
I’m really interested to see the commenters here who seem determined to assume that my experience at the training I attended was wrong, to convince themselves and others that I didn’t see and hear what I saw and heard: resentful, sarcastic, angry older men who were deep in the throes of foregone conclusions about themselves, the training, women who complain about sexual harassment, and so on.
I was there. It was crystal clear to me, and to the trainers when I confronted them afterwards, what the situation was. The questioners had already concluded that they could never possibly commit acts that would actually constitute harassment or even behaviors that were unwanted or offensive to others. The only possibility they saw for themselves was being falsely accused; they saw *themselves* as the potential victims, not their students and colleagues. And the only reporters they showed any concern for were false reporters, whom it was clear they felt made up the majority. So they treated a “prevent sexual harassment” seminar as a “prevent false accusations” seminar, derailing the entire process.
They were given all kinds of answers to the question “how can I maximize my chances of not marginalizing or harassing someone else?” Answers like “you can consider how your words and actions might come across to others, particularly when there is a power difference,” and “you can be sensitive to behaviors that suggest the other person is uncomfortable and ask them if they’re troubled by what you just said or did” and “you can recognize that other people’s experiences may color their reception of your words or actions, even those that you intend to be benign, and not freak out when someone asks you to make a change.”
But that wasn’t their question – their question was clearly more along the lines of “how can I successfully combat anyone’s perception of me as harassing?” They made it clear that the only person’s definition of “what is harassment?” was their own, and were asking for, nay DEMANDING, a way to immediately shut down any possible accusation, because in their minds, any accusation that could possibly be made against them would unarguably be false. In other words, they were looking for a way to exercise institutional power to silence those at the margins who might question them.
These are not the same questions at all, and being in the same room with them, it was absolutely evident which question interested them. And by looking for ways to make their behavior beyond reoproach, commenters here are doing exactly the same thing those guys were doing to begin with.
And, let me point out, their behavior was no different from the young men I’ve worked with in doing psychoeducation about alcohol and campus life, particularly when it comes to alcohol and sex. Some of the men who took the classes I taught were, apparently, uninterested in finding out “how can I make sure I don’t harm someone by having sex with them when they can’t give/haven’t given consent?” but they were very interested in hashing over the many urban legends about this or that friend of a friend of a friend who screwed a girl that “cried rape” when she had regrets the next day.
Focusing on the exceptions of false reporting, at the expense of spending time and energy on the more common experience of women being raped, is not all that different from how white people put themselves at the center of conversations about race by bringing up “that time I was in a black neighborhood and someone called me a cracker.” And it has the same effect, the same effect these guys had on the harassment training I attended: derailing the process, undermining the usefulness of the conversation in actually achieving its stated goal, and failing to actually protect anyone from anything.
“You’ve spent quite a lot of time and words on how awful it is for Elusis to be annoyed by someone’s asking questions, not about how to avoid actually harassing people — he doesn’t care about that — he just wants to avoid ever getting into trouble for it.”
I’d differ on that. He does want to avoid false accusations. Because a he said/she said case he has a lot of chances of losing it. Even if he has 1/5000 chances of being accused of sexual harassment falsely. He wants to prevent that 1/5000 time, because it would cost him everything, even if he was let off the hook.
He doesn’t want a guarantee of never being accused. He wants to know what makes it less likely to be maliciously falsely accused. If keeping the door open makes it less likely to be accused, because people can see or hear clearly what is going on inside his office, then he’ll do that.
Someone I met in a game told me about an incident. She said it really happened. But I have no way to verify. She said she was with a psychiatrist in his office. And eventually beat the heck out of him. Then accused him of pointing a gun at her (which he didn’t, there was just one in his office on the wall). She got off with nothing (saying it was self-defense vs a gun), he got convicted. That’s her side of the story too.
Ad for my own experience. I could have accused two shrinks of either insulting me or my intelligence. One male, one female, both assholes. One was more subtle than the other, the other was blatant. Those were insults tied to my transitioning male to female and my views/ways of thinking, apparently not to their liking.
The first said I was delusional and needed treatment, that my ideas (like reincarnation, and physical causes to identity) were all imaginated and couldn’t possibly be real. The second said I was fine, 100% sane, and a client not actually needing help. Then the second one made crude jokes about how I would be better off as an air hostess, or a female impersonator in a club, because I “liked having attention”. She also threatened to stop my hormone therapy if I didn’t find a job soon, or “transition isn’t for you” (that, after 2 years presenting as female 100% of the time).
He wants to prevent that 1/5000 time, because it would cost him everything, even if he was let off the hook.
Really? People who are accused of sex harassment who are deemed not guilty (not necessarily innocent, but not enough evidence to be sure) lose “everything”? Harold Bloom seems to have survived it quite well, while purportedly liberal media outlets criticized his accuser as “set[ting] back the fight against sexual harassment.” I think the criticism is fair, but it does provide at least one datum point against the idea that if you’re accused of sex harassment, YOUR LIFE IS OVER!!!
Phil,
Actually, it sounds like there is a bright line there, even if it’s not a written or stated rule: showing up after 9:30 may mean that you miss early-morning meetings, and so all employees ought to show up around 9:30,
Nope, because it’s only if you’re working with one particular guy that a meeting will be called for before 10am. My friend who works with different people never gets in before 10am because his group never has meetings before then.
The point I’m making here is that in any workplace, reasonable adults understand that they are to accommodate themselves to the existing environment and don’t demand brightline rules to be written down or voiced. You learn as you go, and as long as you’re not a jerk, people will forgive a mistake. The first time you miss the 9:45am meeting, you need to be apologetic, come in extra early the next couple days and be in by 9:30am every day thereafter; the first time you hear that something you did made a student uncomfortable, you need to be apologetic, spend time talking to the people in charge of the training program, and make an effort to communicate clearly with students thereafter.
However, if your reaction to missing the meeting or hearing that you made the student uncomfortable is to blame others or deny it all or say “Well if you just made brightline rules, this wouldn’t happen,” then people are much less likely to OK the mistake.
I’m going by stories of people who get threatened to death because their case appears in the media (with their full name of course), before any verdict is reached. It may not be common, but well, thunder hitting me ain’t common, but you won’t see me running around in a thunderstorm to tempt luck either.
He might not lose everything, but his reputation would admittedly take a hit (unless the accusation appears blatantly false from the onset – which measures to decrease the likeliness of being accused (such as leaving the door open to other witnesses) do). In a field working with the public, this could endanger a career, through no fault of his own.
You really don’t see any problem here at all, do you? I do: your apparent goal is to change how they THINK. I don’t think you have any business doing that. Your job is merely to change what they do, and what they know.
here’s a conversation as a hypothetical:
I don’t want to be, or come across as ____ist. What can’t I say or do? What is guaranteed ‘safe’ ground?
-There’s nothing you can’t say or do exactly. What you need to do is to be sensitive to others.
OK, I need to be sensitive. What do you think constitutes being ‘sensitive’ enough to be safe ground?
-There is no way to describe that. You simply have to consider the power difference and the individual involved.
OK, power difference. Got it. Exactly what do you mean, and exactly what should I be looking for in each individual?
-Well, you should know that. Go take a few courses in _____.
But… I’m just looking for some rules to follow. Can’t you give me rules to follow?
-Sure: Don’t be, or come across as, ___ist.
You want people not only not to harass, but to do it out of caring? Feh–that’s not your place to require. Just tell them what they want to know: ___ is harassment; ___ is not. ___ is safe ground; ___ is not. ____ will go either way, so if you aren’t comfortable with your instincts, don’t go there. _____ is how to best avoid problems. _____ is what will happen if you are guilty. ____ is how to best prevent accusations.
And incidentally, I don’t think your EXPERIENCE was wrong. I think you experienced “resentful, sarcastic, angry older men.” I think your MORAL JUDGMENT is wrong, and that your CONCLUSIONS are wrong. You can report what you see, but it doesn’t make your conclusions correct.
And if your writing here mirrors your viewpoint, I am somewhat more inclined to understand why they might be resentful and sarcastic to you. How many hours were you with them, exactly? How many individual conversations did you have with them? How far into the course had you gotten before you pegged them as people who “looking for a way to exercise institutional power to silence those at the margins who might question them” as opposed to people who were “justifiably annoyed at being told how to think at the same time they were refused concrete answers to their questions?”
About bright line rules. We now have a policy that 8:01 am is unacceptable. It’s 8:00 or earlier. All unjustified lateness, without previously calling the employer (yes, even for 1 minute) will meet with a note on employer file. All absences must also be justified, preferably before 8:00 am.
To respect concerns of confidentiality, computer and TV screens (of this one tester) must be closed before the tester goes out of the room, even for 1 minute. Clients (game developers) are not allowed to see their competitor’s work on our screens, for the few times they actually visit, the rule can meet with a note on file if not complied with.
We’re also not allowed handbags, cell phones, anything that can take pictures, any storage device. If a cell phone rings within the premise, it’s grounds for being fired on the spot.
I’m going by stories of people who get threatened to death because their case appears in the media (with their full name of course), before any verdict is reached.
You’ve heard of someone’s getting death threats because of a harassment accusation? Can you offer an article or any other evidence of this occurring? I hope we aren’t confusing a harassment accusation with, say, a rape charge. Sex harassment is not a crime, and civilly actionable only in a few contexts, which is why women can’t get cat-calling construction workers (to use a cliche) arrested, nor sue them. Most workplaces will prohibit public discussion of a harassment investigation that’s currently underway; Naomi Wolf wrote her New York magazine piece about Harold Bloom precisely because she was dissatisfied with how Yale had closed the matter.
It is entirely possible that if any of us were in the room at the time, too, we would have perceived these instructors to be resentful and sarcastic, too. But is the detail that they were older and male included here to help communicate that they were sexist or boneheaded about sexual harassment?