November 6, 2008

Professor Risks Job by Refusing to Be Trained in Preventing Sexual Harassment

A molecular biologist at the University of California at Irvine faces the possibility of being put on unpaid leave because he won’t attend training sessions on preventing sexual harassment, the Orange County Register reported.

Such training, Alexander McPherson told the newspaper, is a “sham,” and he has consistently refused to take it because, among other things, it “violated my rights as a tenured professor” and “cast a shadow of suspicion on my reputation and career.”

The university says a 2004 state law, Assembly Bill 1825, requires two hours of training in sexual-harassment prevention every two years for supervisors at businesses that regularly employ 50 or more people. If Mr. McPherson, 64, doesn’t take the training by November 12, he could be placed on unpaid leave from a job that pays nearly $150,000, the paper reported.

The well-known biologist was recently relieved of supervising scientists in his lab following a directive from the university’s provost that applied to those who had not yet attended the training.

Susan Menning, a spokeswoman at the university, said 97 percent of faculty and staff supervisors have complied. That leaves roughly 115 people out of about 3,500 who still need to take the training that is offered online or in person, she said. The training “is not just to keep a person from sexually harassing someone else,” Ms. Menning said. It also provides clarification on what sexual harassment is — and isn’t — “and what supervisors should watch out for” among their employees, she said.

According to the paper, Mr. McPherson, who studies proteins, offered a compromise: He asked the university to sign a disclaimer that says that he must take the training to remain employed and that he has never sexually harassed anyone that he has supervised.

The university wouldn’t sign such a document. —Audrey Williams June

Comments

1. Another example of how pseudointellectual, pseudoliberal state legislators and refugees-from-academe-turned-administrators suck up resources that could otherwise support authentically scholarly activity so that they can play their silly little compliance games.

   — Bebo    Nov 6, 07:09 PM    #

2. As a tenure-track faculty member at a UC school, I didn’t want to make waves by protesting the sexual harassment training policy. I completed it as requested.

   I have to say that the “training” was almost insultingly stupid. There was nothing useful about it. At first, my partner and I sat down together to complete it, as an amusing annoyance. It was not amusing. Nor was it educational. It was a complete and total waste of time.

   One thing was clear. Some other people had wasted much much more time than I had wasted, in creating such an elaborate online training course. On the other hand, I suppose the creators of this online training course got paid for wasting their time.

   — Another UC Faculty Member    Nov 6, 07:11 PM    #

3. Four Observations:
   (1) 97% compliance: echoes of the McCarthy hearings.
   (2) Did Ms. Menning ask how many of the 3385 compliers felt they had learned something?
   (3) I was on the U.‘s side until the penultimate paragraph: shades of A Man for All Seasons.
   (4) Regarding “legislators…administrators”: these people are not from Mars. They have been elected or appointed. Don’t like their fiats? Run for office.

   — richard    Nov 6, 08:20 PM    #

4. I have been forced to take these classes at 2 institutions in campuswide requirements, as a graduate student and as a faculty member. The comment by #2 would apply in both cases – the classes are categorically worthless for preventing sexual harrassment. These courses only exist, as far as I can tell, to protect institutions when lawsuits are filed. This may well be reason enough to have the classes but more honesty on the part of the administrators who require them would somehow make the loss of a work day more palatable.

   — wbd    Nov 6, 10:20 PM    #

5. I have had to take this “training” — in online form — at 2 UC campuses. It is amusing in its insipidity, as one may answer questions, get ahead of the ‘clock’ that tracks acceptable time (to guarantee that the mandatory training duration is met), then minimize the screen to work on something more productive while the clock runs.
   I especially like the Certificate of Completion that one may print out upon finishing — suitable for framing. Would framing multiple copies and displaying them in my office make me look more or less like a sexual-harasser?

   — UC Prof    Nov 6, 11:39 PM    #

6. I’m sure MacPherson and other posters have endured far lengthier and insipid trainings around lab safety protocols or purchasing procedures and complied without proposing “compromises” to the university or funding agencies. I have taken this training seminar as well, and the whole thing took almost no time at all. The outsized response in these posts and by MacPherson belie that a different issue is at play. THe issue is not “time” or “getting work done” because the outlay is miniscule. So, what is that these people are opposed to?
   As #4 says, “more honesty” is needed.

   — voiceofreason    Nov 7, 12:50 AM    #

7. Oh damn. As a trainer in the area of hazard communication and lab safety, this breaks my heart. Training is mandated in these areas, too, and people try to avoid it. And it is vital to their safety and for protection of their liability that the attend the mandatory training sessions. I have worked decades to develop a training that keeps people in their seats with good information and humor.

   I’ll bet I could put together a training module that people would like. It would deal with that fine line between what is and what is not harrassment and look at some of the complicated cases in which this was established. But it sounds like they have done to this subject what some of my colleagues have done to hazard communication training—the have over simiplified it into a recitation of the obvious. Sad.

   — Monona Rossol    Nov 7, 05:43 AM    #

8. Faculty members are employees of the University, and the law mandates that employees receive sexual harassment training. Therefore, faculty members need to undergo this training.

   If an employee or student files a sexual harassment complaint against a faculty member or any other employee, the University can be held liable if the employee did not attend the training.

   Therefore, faculty members, take the training. It may in fact protect you from personal legal liability. This has nothing to do with your “your rights as a tenured professor.” Nothing at all.

   — Samuel    Nov 7, 06:55 AM    #

9. Completeing the training covers you legally and also gives you something to point to when someone in your dept/ lab does sexually harrass someone else if they have completed the training. Having completed the training means that you have a legal basis to stand upon when you need to have someone (with tenure) removed. It can also be seen as a protection.

   — Glen Elder    Nov 7, 06:59 AM    #

10. In every business, all around the United States, someone is logging on to a computer or taking 2 hours to sit down in a room that is not their normal station and taking this same compliance testing. I understand that this prof sees the test as a worthless tool, but I have also met the idiots that have no idea what sexual harassment is and could in fact use the video. I was down south in Mississippi and while eating at a Waffle House, I noticed a sign on the front of the door that was titles, “Racism Is”. It then went on to list things that were racist. Being from a northern state, that sign floored me. I said to myself, “you mean they have to post it here?” And after spending some time in that state, I came to the conclusion that it was posted for god reason. Without having any idea about the campus, about the crimes committed there, about the crimes reported there, we unfortunately have no way of knowing what more there is to this story. I agree that a video will not alter behavior, neither does a restraining order restrain someone that truly desires to hurt you. But, what recourse is there in a nation that requires proof that someone knew that they were committing a crime before they committed it? This video in my eyes could be that one element of legal proof that some person (male or female) could have to say, “Look your honor – someone knew what they were doing because they watched that stupid video” and that is the only one good reason to value that video and I hope that these professors can get on board.

    — Rhonda    Nov 7, 07:37 AM    #

11. It’s very strange that that professor wants the University to sign off that he has never sexually harassed anyone. How would the U. ever know that? Is there some fiasco in the weeds that the professor wants to insure himself against?

    — lowell dunlap    Nov 7, 07:59 AM    #

12. The training does come across as moronic and almost insulting.

    Except it seems to work. For those of us on the far side of 50, sexually charged environments are rare these days.

    L’chaim.

    — Green Eyeshade    Nov 7, 08:04 AM    #

13. Shut up and do what you’re told! Don’t make me stop this car!

    — fg    Nov 7, 08:39 AM    #

14. Even MORE insulting is the ludicrous training forced by the IRB. On my campus, we were told that once we took the test we were safe to conduct research for five years. Then six months later, they switched tests and we have to take another.

    — rt    Nov 7, 08:41 AM    #

15. Sexual harassment is a federal crime. After 20 years in higher education human resources, I have seen many very bright people do very stupid things because they don’t understand what sexual harassment is. Although I’m not familiar with the California training, most sexual harassment programs go beyond simple explanations. They discuss the procedures that must be followed if a person observes or is told about potential harassment. The law requires that an investigation take place; therefore, employees can’t just sit on the information (which almost always makes the situation worse). This isn’t about academic freedom — it’s about ensuring that everyone is able to work in an environment that is free of harassment. If this Professor has a problem with that, I’m glad he’s not on my campus. By the way, the disclaimer the Professor wanted the University to sign is highly suspect. Kudos to University officials for refusing to sign it.

    — Sociologist    Nov 7, 08:46 AM    #

16. Come now, professor, didn’t you know that you have that shadow of suspicion over you by mere fact that you are a professor? (Sigh) Just another example of a tenured professor thinking he is above the rules. Get over yourself and take the training already.

    — Annoyed    Nov 7, 09:02 AM    #

17. He had to take training to drive a car, which includes some stupid stats about stopping distances, etc. Did I memorize them? You bet because I wanted to drive. Does he want to work? If he does, he needs to take the training even though it is probably a waste of time. Who knows, he may be harassed and not even suspect it.

    — Joe the Screwed    Nov 7, 09:19 AM    #

18. He’s not forced to remain employed, either.

    — Daisy    Nov 7, 09:20 AM    #

19. As a former trainer and training manager, I was always baffled by the individuals who resisted training or declared that the training was a waste of their time because they already knew it. Then they went back to work and demonstrated their total ignorance of the topic. This was consistent regardless of the level of education and the level of responsibility within the organization.

    — Bob    Nov 7, 09:21 AM    #

20. When it comes to sexual harassment training, the professor should pretend he’s a student and just sleep through the class.

    — Prof Smith    Nov 7, 09:29 AM    #

21. Some professors seem to think that the word “tenure” means “I’m so smart that I don’t have to follow the normal rules of employment that are federally and locally mandated.” As a student who was sexually harrassed by a tenured professor and a student who was powerless because it was before the federal prohibition on sexual harrassment, I’m glad that workplaces, (yes universities are included here) have this training, however simplistic it may seem to those more used to reading academic journals. Somehow tenured professors have to get over the notion that state and federal laws don’t apply to them because they don’t view themselves as employees. They are employees and have to follow the terms of their employment, which sometimes includes mandatory training. I wish the professor who harrassed me had been required to do this. It would have made my life a lot easier during and after college.

    — jb    Nov 7, 09:37 AM    #

22. Just another example of bureaucracy run amok. I bought my first house signing only two sheets of paper for the loan and the deed. The mass of junk one now has to go through for the same exercise was made a mockery of by the current lending fiasco. I suspect this kind of “training” serves an equally futile purpose. On the bright side, it does provide employment. A recent Chronicle article regarding what is driving up the cost of college noted that since 1976 tenure track faculty positions in higher education have increased in number by 17% while staff positions are up a whopping 281% (never mind academic administrators, with a more modest 101%). People who concoct stuff like this “training” apparently don’t recognize that time is a resource that should not be so casually consumed. Things such as assessment, training, and strategic planning could be worthwhile, but in the hands of the very average bureaucrats who inevitably have to do the heavy lifting, they turn into the kind of mockery we are seeing here. It’s a shame we spend so much available resource in this manner.

    — CW    Nov 7, 09:43 AM    #

23. Power to the professor. We should all go to the mat for him. I am so sick of this pc crap.

    — Mary Ann    Nov 7, 09:47 AM    #

24. I have to say this as well, I’ll bet I could put together a training module that people would like. It should deal with that fine line between what is and what is not harrassment and look at some of the complicated cases in which this was established. I do it every day and my students leave laughing and informed and loaded with solid strategy that would properly guide them on how to take out any serious offender tenured or not. I teach diffusion methods and documentation effectiveness. Sorry your instructors sucked but when I do it you laugh, cry and reconsider your management effectiveness in this critical leadership area. You then leave my classes with a defined plan and the capability to protect your students and staff and the knowledge on when to know the difference.
    BTW I have also investigated this type of thing, and I agree that the probability is that he has something to hide, he is looking for a free pass for some reason, the real question is why the indemnification statement is critical for him? skeletons maybe? Hummmmm

    — Hargraves    Nov 7, 10:06 AM    #

25. If you don’t like the rules, find a job somewhere else. There are other people who will play by the rules who would gladly take your salary.

    — SB    Nov 7, 10:08 AM    #

26. Sexual harassment is not a federal crime. It’s defined as a variety of discrimination. You can’t be criminally prosecuted for it.

    Amusing that so many who advocate the training don’t know the most basic facts about s.h.. Physician, heal thyself?

    — Gerard Harbison, UNL    Nov 7, 10:09 AM    #

27. Good for the professor resisting the expansion of political control of all people. Certainly murder must still be considered a more heinous crime than an ugly person trying to flirt with someone (or even of one person raping another), but we have no policy requirements about procedures to take if one suspects someone else of murder, or of burglary, or being a communist, or anything. Complaints about being raped should be investigated and prosecuted, certainly, and even complaints about sexual coercion should be investigated and prosecuted, but we stop caring about the abuse when we try to prevent all possibility of it ocurring by executing authoritarian and punitive preventative measures. We’re really caring about making perfectly innocent people more and more docile and amenable.

    — Pat    Nov 7, 10:10 AM    #

28. Hargraves says: “BTW I have also investigated this type of thing, and I agree that the probability is that he has something to hide, he is looking for a free pass for some reason, the real question is why the indemnification statement is critical for him? skeletons maybe? Hummmmm”

    Hargraves wants to design the training. Advertises happy, smiling results. Could Hargraves be hiding something? Financial interest in keeping the sham going perhaps? Follow the money. Hummmmm.

    — Follow the money, just follow the money    Nov 7, 10:19 AM    #

29. This same professor most likely requires his students to sit through boring lectures and read unnecessary material, to take pointless exams that have little to do with their futures. It sounds to me like there is more to this story. He seems very much like many ’60’s and 70’s rebels who has probably been involved with more students than he can count. I’ve seen it before. Those students should all come forward and an unpaid leave instituted until he confesses, at which point he ought to be terminated.

    — seen this before    Nov 7, 10:23 AM    #

30. The professor is being a pompous ass. We all have to do things in life we don’t like or don’t agree with. He only has to invest two hours of his time and then this is done. Is this really worth the battle?

    — Scott    Nov 7, 10:24 AM    #

31. #26, I couldn’t agree more. People with jobs should feel privileged given the labor stats just released: 65% unemployment rate and 284,000 jobs lost last month. Compliance, especially as benign as an online course, is a small price to pay for a $150,000/yr job. There are a lot of people who would endure a lot more than that to get just a fraction of that salary.

    — enkaybee    Nov 7, 10:28 AM    #

32. I support the UC on this. A 2-hour video on sexual harrassment may be boring, oversimplified, and a waste of time, but it is definitely NOT a huge impingement of our personal freedoms. There are many more worthy battles to be fought in academe than this.

    — madamesmartypants    Nov 7, 10:32 AM    #

33. With the recent Pilled Higher and Deeper in the news lately grabbing body parts that aren’t theirs or asking to see things for grades you should all go thought it. It is for lawsuit purposes. Start making the PH.D pay out of own pocket and they will go to training. For such smart people you are acting so dumb. Protect your self and protect the university that gives you a job, show some loyalty it is not all about you….

    — Remember the Alamo    Nov 7, 10:40 AM    #

34. Mandatory SH training protects universities from costly lawsuits. I’ve been required to take this training at two different jobs, and both times they were very up front about the reason they required the training: First, they thought it was important because there really are some people who don’t get it, as evidenced by the fact that sexual harassment continues to take place. Second, it protects against costly lawsuits, because the university can defend itself by saying it has a policy in place and all employees are required to learn it.

    Preventing costly lawsuits is sound risk management, which in turn contributes to sound fiscal management, which in turn contributes to the university’s ability to continue to pay pompous idiots like the professor in this article $150,000 a year to be pompous idiots. He ought to suck it up and complete the training. Odds are, he’d learn something, but even if he didn’t, he’d be contributing to the fiscal health of his university. What a selfish nit.

    — Michele    Nov 7, 10:43 AM    #

35. I’ve been on faculty committees that deal with sexual harassment accusations. Some involved clear evidence of harassment — soliciting sex for grades, etc. The most common defense by the faculty member being accused: “I didn’t know it was harassment!” This defense always struck me as lying, but the defense was effective enough to suggest that everyone needed to be told what sexual harassment is. What makes required instruction on sexual harassment any more PC than requiring instruction before giving someone a driver’s license? McPherson isn’t defending a principle; he’s just full of himself.

    — john    Nov 7, 10:46 AM    #

36. It is a big sham. I have attended several antisexual harrassment workshops in our university. It is a waste of time and energy. The administration goes blindly just to meet the requirements.

    — kvc    Nov 7, 10:46 AM    #

37. It used to be that interactions between the sexes were governed by simple respect, manners and common grace. It was a normal part of childhood training.

    Robert Charles Winthrop said, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled… either by the Bible or by the bayonet.” Liberals have made their choice, and that’s why we have “political correctness” and sexual harrassment training programs required by those who have the “bayonet.”

    — Red State University    Nov 7, 10:48 AM    #

38. This professor is tilting at the wrong windmill.

    Did anyone but me click on the link to the California state law that mandates this training? The university is merely acting in compliance with the law. They risk audit findings and fines for non-compliance.

    If Professor Quixote has an issue with having to take sexual harrassment training, he needs to take that up with the California state legislature, not UC, which no doubt has better ways to spend its time and money than bickering over a policy that’s not up to them.

    — TxHRAdmin    Nov 7, 10:54 AM    #

39. Exactly the problem with tenure…faculty don’t equate their salary with being an employee. Tenure and academic freedom protect what one teaches and does not give a license to avoid all supervision or rules.

    — smokey    Nov 7, 10:54 AM    #

40. The University just doesn’t get it. No means no. Professors should not have to put up with irrelevant discussions of sexual behavior at their place of work. Stop harassing the poor tenured professor.

    — tb    Nov 7, 10:59 AM    #

41. #34 &#36
    When I was teaching in grad school, I was approached by a very cute young female student. She told me that she would do “anything” for an A. I tried to ignore her; however, she was persistant. She even threatened to report that I had “force her” eventhough nothing had ever been done. I had to set a trap. She was expelled, but I was not ruined. Be careful, it works both ways.

    — Joe the Screwed    Nov 7, 11:02 AM    #

42. Hellooooooo! If two hours of time is not worth your salary, find another job. Do you follow the law and drive on the right side of the road, or do you kick into reverse and drive wherever and however you feel like driving? A little standardization keeps our culture moving — just suck it up and take the stupid training.

    — judith    Nov 7, 11:07 AM    #

43. Just do it! You work for the University, not yourself. If you were a free agent then you could complain. It’s designed to protect you and the U. You don’t know who may accuse you of sexual harrasment even if you didn’t harass them.

    — Charles    Nov 7, 11:17 AM    #

44. C.Y.A.

    — Buster    Nov 7, 11:17 AM    #

45. He is a full professor in molecular bio, with millions in federal grants, and only gets paid $158K?

    I’m willing to bet the Diversity administrator who supervises this program probably has an education or counseling psych degree, no pubs, no grants, works an 8 hour day, and gets $250,000 minimum.

    McPherson is getting the shaft more ways then one. So are the taxpayers.

    — Random Professor    Nov 7, 11:25 AM    #

46. #41 and Others
    The only thing I ask is NOT to say “this is the problem with tenure”.

    NO, this is a problem with the way this person perceives tenure, and the way he is attempting to use it.

    We don’t dismiss the role of “the shield” in police work and say that it should be removed just because there are some bad cops on the beat, so please don’t dismiss the role of tenure just because there’s some ignoramous whose decided it a good excuse to not have to do the training.

    Thanks!

    — Bilbo    Nov 7, 11:31 AM    #

47. Although the UC professor in question is being quite silly, we should know that two hours of “training” will not overcome the sort of pathology that prompts certain individuals to sexually harass their students and coworkers. That is where I think the problem lies – these “training” seminars actually accomplish nothing. They don’t even make the administration look good. Clearly something needs to be done on a regular basis regarding sexual, gender-oriented, lifestyle-oriented, and racial harassment. And this reliance on specious “training” only allows colleges and universities to do nothing of any real substance.

    — Rusty    Nov 7, 11:54 AM    #

48. Why is a professional educator protesting that education is worthless? Why are so many other professional educators stating that this form of education is, almost by definition, worthless? I think we would all agree that training can be designed well or poorly, but to argue that training is unimportant is incredibly hypocritical.

    — jwk    Nov 7, 12:13 PM    #

49. In the 1970s (not so long ago), I worked for a congressman who not only was having an affair with one of his key staffers, but was also sexually harassing other young women who worked for him. You wouldn’t believe the stories these young ladies told about a man who did not want to take no for an answer. He was certainly not alone in his behavior; in those days, in was a common practice not only by elected officials, but by many men in power. I believe that many of those posting comments here today are too young to remember those days when such behavior had to be tolerated for fear of losing one’s job. Because it is important to keep men enlightened (and it is mostly, although not exclusively, men who are responsible for the problem), such training is really a very tiny price to pay for maintaining a workplace free from sexual harassment.

    — greenblue    Nov 7, 12:34 PM    #

50. Is sexual harrassment training actual mandated by law, or is it mandated by administrative policy that is concerned only with protecting itself from lawsuits?

    My problem is that none of this training actually changes behavior, only protects an institution with the false sense of legal shelter. Has anyone ever heard of a case in which the alleged victim did not also sue the institution, claiming that the institution knew that the alleged perpetrator has certain propensities?

    The simplest rule is what an old man gave me when I was a teenager: keep your hands to yourself and beyond simple pleasantries, your month shut.

    G’day Y’all

    — 2B    Nov 7, 12:40 PM    #

51. Most of us view sexual harassment training as “useless” for the same reason as we would, for instance, view anti-murder training as useless: that is, the fact that it doesn’t impact the vast majority of us who have never seriously considered either action. The difference is that while almost everyone is aware that murder is against the law and will get you into trouble, there are, regrettably, a large number of people who are NOT aware of their rights or vulnerability in harassment cases: either as harasser or harassee. A person may be doing things that seem perfectly harmless to him/her, but, by law, equate to harassment. It makes sense to take a couple of hours, even those so precious tenured hours, to CYA.

    Get over it professor: take the damn training. As has been mentioned several times here, the university would be putting itself at risk by continuing your employment if you don’t.

    — Kaybar    Nov 7, 12:45 PM    #

52. Thanks, #50, for your input. However, I wonder if you got at least part of it wrong: perhaps many of those posting here remember those days as “the good old days” when they could ruin their students’ lives with impunity.

    — BP    Nov 7, 12:52 PM    #

53. Why this professor would base his lack of praticipation on the argument that taking this training indicates he is guility of sexual harrassment is amusing at best. When he has to participate in lab safely seminars does he have the university sign a document that he has never broken any federal of state laws as they relate to lab facilities.
    Why is it once some people get tenure they assume they are self employed?

    — mary ellen    Nov 7, 02:37 PM    #

54. I also took this “training” module…and I agree with #2 and #5—it was useless, and it didn’t need to be. Most distressing— neither the state law nor the UC administration suggested what duties I was relieved of in exchange for the two hours…See other news reported in CHE today about UCLA eliminating seminar requirments? Surely someone can put 2 and 2 together…

    — perplexed    Nov 7, 02:47 PM    #

55. I’m in with post #49, do we really want to be in the position of stating that training and education is a worthless endeavor just because the training Instructor at UC lacks a little luster. Train the trainer!!
    As for post #29 I solve problems and remove more creeps a year with solid educational strategies that work proactively then you will ever know. As for all the posts about uselessness do you really know? what is your gauge anyway? As someone that teaches this subject regularly among others, I am here to tell you that I have no less then 1 person a month stay after class to talk and those talks result in 10 or more removals of staff members a year in organizations for serious sexually based offenses and if i did my job correctly you should never know that because i got to the victim in time and removed the perpetrator from the community of educators and students and in doing so I protected my organizations from risk and made the group safer.
    I’m also with post #50 I’m afraid that I too remember the good old days and it was not so good for professional women.
    Signed Mr.Hargraves

    — Hargraves    Nov 7, 03:46 PM    #

56. The UC training requirement can be fulfilled either online or in person. I did the online the first time and it was very generic and not terribly relevant to my work environmentl. The second time around (we have to do it every two years, whether you remember the last time or not) we had a custom session designed for our department – much better and actually useful because we got to ask questions that pertained to situations we might actually encounter.

    Now, I’ve only had to do safety and ethics training once. Why are we assumed to be able to remember that but not sexual harrassment?

    — jenjen    Nov 7, 04:46 PM    #

57. With all due respect to William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “The lady (and the professor) doth protest too much, methinks.”

    — An Observer    Nov 7, 05:19 PM    #

58. I think we’re missing the point. Sexual harassment is a serious offense that is all too prevalent. It infringes on the rights of the victims and decreases productivity. Training supervisors to prevent, recognize and deal with sexual harassment makes complete sense – especially if it can be done effectively in 2 h (?). What is clear is that the current training programs are lacking and we should be discussing how to improve them.

    Can’t blame the Professor for not wanting to waste his time but he’ll likely spend more time fighting this.

    — Jay SLC    Nov 7, 06:01 PM    #

59. I would agree with most of the posters here and say that the training is stupid and not worth the time, but then it happened to me. I was harrassed at my current job in higher ed and had to make the decision to tell. Being in the discussions, I was able to tell myself I was doing the righ thing by telling — that it was not insignificant and not my fault. It is part of our culture, unfortunately, and something that has to be done. The prof is doing this to make a statement. If you don’t like it, get a new job. Do it or don’t, but the consequence is another job. Figure it out.

    — Brooke    Nov 7, 06:52 PM    #

60. Except… that sexual harassment is typically so vaguely defined as to include anything a woman deems “creates an unsafe work environment.” Remember, don’t try to score dates at work! You might have to pay.
    The whole sexual harassment thing is fairly entertaining. If a woman, for example, agrees to a date, it’s not harassment, but if she doesn’t and you say, “Pleeeease?” that’s harassment, if she doesn’t agree of course. I didn’t waste my time taking the optional course my school offered.
    Sexual harassers, true harassers in general, are going to harass someone if they fee like it, regardless of whether the person wants them to or not! (Presumably the course would just make them more slick.)

    — Legend    Nov 7, 06:54 PM    #

61. This so-called “training” is a waste of time. Often it lasts all day and features “trainers” that tell the same tired old anecdotes. The chief harrassers (administrators) sign in and leave; the hapless victims are left to spend the day being bored.

    I took the online training once and did a 2-hour test in 20 minutes with score of 100. Why do I have to repeat learning the same platitudes? Bravo to the professor who had the courage to say no.

    — Bunny    Nov 7, 11:21 PM    #

62. I am always amazed how seemingly intelligent people can have such large reasoning deficits. How can any professor present himself/herself as a skilled teacher while they simultaneously declare publicly that they are incapable of being taught?

    — Bill    Nov 8, 08:08 PM    #

63. When I went to college, we had to complete an online training thing called AlcoholEdu. It was in two parts and each part took about an hour. A trite pain in the ass? Yes. A waste of time? Yes. Utterly useless? No. Despite all the whining we did about it, alcoholedu did have a few gems of information. More importantly, it was a way for the college to make sure that new students thought about alcohol before they all came bright-eyed to the near total freedom of campus.

    Also, after taking alcoholedu, there was no excuse to engage in alcoholic behaviors in ignorance; the college was making sure that nobody could accuse it of carelessness.

    How does this professor know for sure he won’t learn anything? And you want to talk about time wasting: he’s probably wasted more time quibbling about completing the training than if he actually did it.

    To be totally honest, alcoholism on campus, sexual harassment, racism, ect are all problems. Maybe these little workshops don’t do much to ameliorate these terribly detrimental situations, but they at least bring attention to them. Until the professor has a better idea on how to fix the world’s problems, he should just suck it up.

    And he should also know that he can’t get in the way of institutions wanting to cover their asses. What does he expect in a country run by lawyers?

    — Quincy    Nov 9, 03:51 PM    #

64. California has led the way through liberal policy agendas cum cumbersome sexual harassment laws that ushered in such legislation and case laws (yes, liberalism and frivolous lawsuits are comfortable bed fellows) that have wrought such a litigious society as we ‘enjoy’ today and then complain when that same society brushes us all with the same swath of suspicion and distrust. After all, liberalism at its core ascribes to the belief that there are perpetual victims in need of protection…and where there are victims, there must be victimizers. So this professor needs to understand that there are a lot of unintended consequences for his beliefs, especially as he has suckled at the teat of liberalism for years…and currently to the tune of $150K.

    You can’t vote for leftist Senators, Congresspersons, Mayors and Presidents (excepting Reagan) in carte blanche fashion and then complain about the laws it births, especially when those of us who didn’t vote for them must suffer under them as well.

    — Freya Foley    Nov 10, 04:24 PM    #

65. Of course the university requiring this course or even the prof taking it will not prevent a lawsuit. The lawsuit will come and may even be lost. If you were trained, then you were in a position where you should have known and thus should have prevented said harassment

    I saw a good prof leave the classroom because he was sexually harassed by two different students on separate occasions. On the occasion of the second case, the student was kicked out and then appealed, ultimately to our highest authority – the trustees. They sided with the student and the prof quit. Their justification was that because he had been harassed twice, he must have done something to encourage the behavior. Students wouldn’t just do this to a prof. I was disgusted by the actions and actually am no longer at that institution.

    — me    Nov 11, 09:49 AM    #

66. #1 and #2 said it all and said it well. In an era of budget restraints and large classes it is nonsense such as this that waste valuable resources. At the very least, leave people alone to do their jobs.

    — Marty    Nov 11, 12:56 PM    #

67. After ignoring several email reminders to take the required online training, I finally relented when told I needed to or else…I quickly did it and ‘passed’. However, I was then told that altho I passed the exam, I did it too quickly. I needed to log back on and simply let the clock run out so I met the mandated two hour minimum online training.

    — David Madson    Nov 12, 01:13 PM    #

68. UC paid out over $15 million in Employment Practices Liability claims in fy 2007. [ucop annual report)

    Obviously, not everyone “already knows this.”

    They are simply attempting to be good stewards of the funds with which they’ve been entrusted.

    — Anne Mulholland    Nov 12, 04:20 PM    #

69. What a monumental jackass. His rationale—that it would tarnish his reputation to take a class all employees are mandated by law to take—doesn’t even make sense. If you’re going to choose a “Custer’s Last Stand” to stake everything on, surely it should be one that makes sense and is at least arguably worthwhile?!

    — ideagirl    Nov 13, 12:45 PM    #

Previous: Veterans Affairs Department Cancels Plan to Outsource New Education Benefit
Next: Colorado Becomes First State to Reject Ballot Measure to Ban Affirmative Action