= Premium Content

  • Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

AAUP Urges Education Dept. to Reconsider Sexual-Harassment Guidance

July 28, 2011, 5:13 pm

The American Association of University Professors is urging the Education Department to reconsider recommending as the standard of evidence “more likely than not” in campus sexual-harassment cases. To uphold academic freedom, the AAUP’s burden of proof is “clear and convincing evidence”; the newly recommended lower standard would erode due-process protections, Gregory F. Scholtz, associate secretary and director of the association’s Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance, wrote to Russlynn H. Ali, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights. AAUP joins the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech group, in opposing the new guidelines. Other groups, including the American Association of University Women, have applauded them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • dale1

    There’s a joke in here somewhere, I know it!  The tropes about lecherous college professors are everywhere.  Hm…. Where’s my inner George Bernard Shaw when I need him?

    By the way, I’m not sure how lowering a standard of evidence amounts to a denial or erosion of due process rights.  I’d like to know how the AAUP justifies that one.

  • andalucia

    Well, I’m all for due process, though I am struck by the fact that if I were a student now, I’d be in the same boat that I was back then: I’d be a victim who couldn’t afford a lawyer, who had no support whatsoever, who had no idea how the process worked, for whom no evidence would ever be “clear and convincing” enough. For many police departments (I’ve done my research), even DNA evidence often is not “clear and convincing” enough, and is tossed out along with the victim.

  • http://twitter.com/GerardHarbison Gerard Harbison

    We can now anticipate hearing that because “accusers seldom lie about harrassment”, it is more likely than not that any accusation is true. And a mere accusation will cause faculty to lose their job.

  • feudipandola

    Thinking like this makes me so happy that I’m too damn old to care about women anymore. 

  • manoflamancha

    And that would be criminal, hence the need for a “clear and convincing evidence” ruling. This surely is not a Civil matter where preponderance of the evidence is the standard.

  • phonenear

    The unintended consequence of this erosion is likely to be that profs will have to go to substantial lengths to avoid any form of interaction with students anywhere other than in a public place or, with advance permission, recording any interaction for quality assurance. Not sure that, on balance, that’s going to be such a great thing for women.

  • dale1

    Actually that’s a very significant downside, and one that I am not sure many faculty are willing to risk.  At many institutions, women make up much more than half of the student body.  It’s nearly impossible to be in a unit without them, and if every interaction is fraught with uncertainty, that’s a powerful disincentive to work with women. 

    “Why risk it?” may become the mantra of all faculty, and that’s a terrible outcome.

  • 11122741

    everyone should read Feminist Accused of Sexual Harassment to understand what is going on her and how political and unwise it is; excellent exposition of how flawed and quality diminishing this whole approach to this problem is and has become particularly after 25 years of change in this area.

  • alan_kors

    It is indecent for anyone to be tried on serious charges—sexual assault is as serious as they come—before a campus tribunal, not to mention with “preponderance of the evidence” as the criterion.  Murder can include sexual violence…. Shall we adjudicate charges of murder in a campus tribunal (“our criteria are different from that of benighted society”), independent of the criminal justice system.  Assault is criminal, and a trial on the truth of such charges should occur in the manner that befits any civilized society—with due process protections and a high burden of proof if one is to ruin another human being’s life—not with the standards of traffic court or, which is the case here, with a presumption of guilt once the tribunal and the appeals officers are “trained.”  Under the OCR’s absurd and cruel policy, even if one is acquitted, one’s accuser has a right to appeal, and even if the plaintiff loses that appeal also, the “Title IX Compliance Officer”—gee, I wonder if that person will be unbiased?—has the authority to overrule such tribunals.  The AAUP objects to faculty having their lives ruined and their rightful protections against false accusations eviscerated by the new policy (which, presenting itself as a mere “clarification,” avoided all the input appropriate to changes in regulations).  Students are equally vulnerable…. indeed, far more so.  Tribunals given special missions and training are not disinterested seekers after truth.  Who would send a son, brother, lover, or husband into such a snake pit of kangaroo courts, where a mere accusation is tantamount, barring the kind of evidence that can’t be found or can’t be introduced, to a finding of guilty?  If you believe that women never file false charges, that due process doesn’t matter, and that unbiased tribunals are a pipe dream, take a look at Southern rape charges by white women against black men in the era of Jim Crow and lynching.  Read *To Kill A Mockingbird* again! 

  • clementj

    Why is technology still being touted as the answer?  This has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t had any effect.  The answer is NOT technology, but having the teachers do what research has shown works.  See: “The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics”, Am. J. Phys. 79 5 May 2011.  But don’t be decieved by the title.  Gain in learning went from 13% to 50% by changing what was done in class, and the content was essentially the same.  Jerry Epstein has found the same thing in his math studies.Using a research designed inquiry method produces much better results. Such methods can be used with or without a lot of high tech.  In the case of science appropriate tech is helpful in expediting the method.  But fancy presentations and multimedia is seldom part of the methods that really work.  Research of this type has been going on for over 40 years, so why isn’t it used?????  Thinking Science by Shayer & Adey can dramatically improve student thinking, but it requires NO high tech.  It requires a trained teacher who knows hos to use the materials that are all supplied.  And it is NOT scripted, but it does follow a set sequence.  But the teacher has to know how to react and ask the right questions.The claims of high tech are just advertising, and as such should be suspect.  When used for conventional pedagogy, it only increases the cost.  And when courses go online, there is now evidence that they are inferior.The claims of high tech are just advertising, and as such should be suspect.  When used for conventional pedagogy, it only increases the cost.  And when courses go online, there is now evidence that they are inferior.

  • clementj

    Why is technology still being touted as the answer?  This has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t had any effect.  The answer is NOT technology, but having the teachers do what research has shown works.  See: “The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics”, Am. J. Phys. 79 5 May 2011.  But don’t be decieved by the title.  Gain in learning went from 13% to 50% by changing what was done in class, and the content was essentially the same.  Jerry Epstein has found the same thing in his math studies.Using a research designed inquiry method produces much better results. Such methods can be used with or without a lot of high tech.  In the case of science appropriate tech is helpful in expediting the method.  But fancy presentations and multimedia is seldom part of the methods that really work.  Research of this type has been going on for over 40 years, so why isn’t it used?????  Thinking Science by Shayer & Adey can dramatically improve student thinking, but it requires NO high tech.  It requires a trained teacher who knows hos to use the materials that are all supplied.  And it is NOT scripted, but it does follow a set sequence.  But the teacher has to know how to react and ask the right questions.The claims of high tech are just advertising, and as such should be suspect.  When used for conventional pedagogy, it only increases the cost.  And when courses go online, there is now evidence that they are inferior.The claims of high tech are just advertising, and as such should be suspect.  When used for conventional pedagogy, it only increases the cost.  And when courses go online, there is now evidence that they are inferior.

  • cmorrissey

    The dearth of rigorous research on measuring learning outcomes will forever plague the answer to this important question.  Higher ed continues to fund ‘learning management systems” with litttle or no justification.  The full employment act is alive and well in higher ed IT management.

  • richarddeu

    Illinois’ new mandated mantra is “60 by 25″; so all those hawking goggles should apply here! The sad reality is found in a colleague’s comment to a sub-committee of the Illinois Board of Higher Education: “The only possible way to reach 60 by 25 is if China puts a woman on Mars, and even then it’s a slim chance.”  Of course we’re old and remember Sputnik.

  • chemistry_guy

    The headline implies the author knows much more than any one person is likely to know about the state of technology in education.  I’d suggest toning things down a bit. 

    If the author truly knows all there is to know about technology and outcomes in education, perhaps he can tell us what has happened at Illinois and Texas (and 50 other major universities) with respect to grade distributions in Calculus over the past four years. And perhaps the author knows what effect this is having on retention in STEM education?  I doubt this could be the case, since even the administrators at these schools struggle to find causation in outcomes and connect that directly to the amazing AI technology they are using to improve things.

    But there is no doubt that things are improving, and technology is playing a central role in the improvement.  

  • http://twitter.com/omamed Otis

    Student success would improve if we stopped looking for technology to improve it, or constructing  yet another way to assess their learning… and started teaching them without assuming they are all college material.

  • fasteddie

    Always fascinating reading; 3-to-5 years really? Won’t this always be the mousehole? What happens in the gap in the meantime; same pirates different boats. Whether a typewriter or a laser, the tools as props can’t be mistaken for the learning experience. I say godspeed with the data and the analytics if they can open more doors to the kids I’m working w/ who can’t quite remember how to make change for a dollar. 

  • http://twitter.com/AiPODFaculty AiPODFaculty

    Interesting article.

  • Prof_truthteller

    I’m not sure if you honestly believe that or if you are being sarcastic. What you describe (infinite patience and subject matter expertise; interact with humans; 
    determine exactly the connection that the learner is not grasping and then be able to drive it home to the learner; use of multiple modalities) sounds to me like what real, live human teachers do every day. 

  • peitho

    I’m quite certain that the students are found to be reading the textbook are the ones who will performing well, and I don’t need a study to tell me that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Earl-Token/20714130 Earl Token

    Good point Paul. However, I still feel education is worth it despite cost and the return investment. It really depends on what type experience you get in college. Jobs are looking for students who are finishing up their degree with real-world experience in the field. If you can hold a degree plus real-world experience in a form of intensive internships (more than one), than I believe a student right out of college can be very competitive in the job market.

  • http://twitter.com/rpetersmauri Rebecca Petersen

    This headline is cringe inducing for many of the reasons mentioned below. I was dismayed that learning analytics was mentioned at the end of this article. This piece would be stronger if learning analytics was the focus. There is a missed opportunity to weave in how emerging technologies and practices are supporting the growth of this approach and its significance to the future of both classroom and online teaching. Perhaps a future story??? 

  • hohleman

    “Socrates said: ‘…for by telling them of many
    things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for
    the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with
    the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.’” (Plato,
    Phaedrus, 275 a-b).

    Posted not by a neo-Amish, but by a guy who owns an iPad, iPhone, and uses technology in the classroom. Advice: Just keep perspective on what technology can and cannot do for education.

  • ohsully7

    Three Years?  Do I have a surprise in store for you guys…..Stay Tuned

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1382989019 Eric Pierce

    http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/97/consultants.html

    The Once / Future Consultant
    By: Lucas ConleyAugust 1, 2005

    excerpts:
    …Dave Ulrich sees systems. Not just in the typical places — our offices, our halls of government, our sports fields — but in places you’d never expect. It started in college, at Brigham Young University. For his honors thesis, he examined the organization of the entire English department and asked: “Was the department designed to deliver value to its students?” The fall before he was to graduate, he presented his findings to the faculty. His conclusion: BYU fell woefully short in teaching its students how to write, and the university’s practice of hiring its own graduates reinforced the problem. They kicked him out of the department. Or, as the dean put it the next morning in his office, “We don’t think you should graduate with an English degree.” Ulrich’s diploma, unframed and stacked away, is for something called “university studies.”
    BYU’s professors may not have appreciated Ulrich’s diagnostic eye for organizational flaws, but today’s business leaders tell a different story. In 2000, Forbes named Ulrich “one of the top five business coaches in the world.” Business Week disagreed, ranking him the world’s number-one management consultant a year later. As a sounding board to CEOs at such corporations as GM and GE, Ulrich built his career listening to (and ultimately resolving) complex organizational problems. He has published eight books on organizational behavior, human resources, and change. Rather than relegate HR to mundane chores such as benefits and company picnics, Ulrich calls for strategic systems that instill a deeper feeling of culture and community. Such intangible assets, he believes, motivate workers to produce tangible returns like revenue and market value. “Dave really takes a problem down to its generic roots,” says Steve Kerr, a former professor and colleague of Ulrich’s who is now the managing director and chief learning officer at Goldman Sachs. “He frames things in a way that makes them susceptible to solution.”

  • 11272784

    “Technology Is at Least 3 Years Away From Improving Student Success.”

    Gee, that’s a big surprise to us, as we’re using various online technologies to extend education to thousands of students who wouldn’t have access to it otherwise.  We only will make $30 million this year doing it.

    I guess if it ever catches on, we might actually make a buck doing it!

    Seriously, technology is a moving target and technologies like radio have been used for education since the 1920′s. What we need to do is keep improving the way we use them – which in higher ed MOSTLY means that we need to get faculty to stop using teaching approaches that are 40 years out of date, and learn to actually use the technologies which are available. The biggest limiting factor today isn’t the technologies, it’s the way we use them.

  • mcphersonjan

    mixing learning with practical experience may provide better statistics for evaluating learning in the classroom.  learning a second language does not really mean either fluency or understanding the culture(s) of the language until one ‘dives’ into one of the cultures of that language, however that language is acquired.  going top Graz, Austria is quite different from spending -at least a year – in Hamburg, for example.  wouldn’t a similar approach of evaluation apply to many fields of learning?

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.