November 12, 2008

Professor Skips Class in Sexual-Harassment Prevention, Imperiling His Job

This just in from Alexander McPherson, the University of California at Irvine biologist who refuses to take a state-mandated training class in sexual-harassment prevention at his university: He won’t be attending today’s class, which is slated to begin at 10 a.m., Pacific time.

Mr. McPherson, whose absence could cause him to be put on unpaid leave, said he would be working instead on an “experiment that’s going to take up all of my time this morning.”

The molecular biologist has said that the training, among other things, puts his career and reputation at risk.

According to the Orange County Register, at least two members of Mr. McPherson’s staff have urged him to change his mind because their jobs, with salaries covered by grants he secures, depend on him.

Mr. McPherson said the plight of the people who work in his lab “makes this a very, very difficult situation.” However, he is counting on the university to do what it takes to keep his staff from possibly losing their jobs over his stance.

“What I am betting on is that ultimately we’re going to resolve this in a rational matter,” Mr. McPherson said. —Audrey Williams June

Comments

1. What a bonehead! Are we really to believe that a full professor is working in the lab doing an experiment? HA! Yeah, right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

   — Bob    Nov 12, 01:38 PM    #

2. (Sarcasm on)
   Of course he should not attend! Faculty are not employees and are not bound by any of the normal rules of employee behaviors – most especially if they’re tenured, and ABSOLUTELY if they’re unionized!

   Why on earth would those silly administrators (who are paid way too much, anyway) be so droll and feckless as to try to “require” a faculty member to do something s/he doesn’t want to do? It’s bad enough the faculty have to provide identification and similar materials when they’re hired. That kind of indigninity and lack of understanding of scholarship and research could lead to chaos! Anarchy! Responsiblity!

   (sarcasm off)

   The fact that Mr. McPherson is now using the students and staff as “human shield” hostages to prevent him from facing disciplinary processes is absurd and demonstrates the behavior of an employee who shoudln’t work there any longer. Let him go, find a replacement, and move on.

   — Jeff Ehney    Nov 12, 01:47 PM    #

3. meh…

   its obvious he isnt going to attend. the training is really a cya for the admin and i doubt he would really benefit from it given his current disposition. why did the uni not take him up on his offer to sign the letter indicating that he had never …??

   — meh    Nov 12, 02:11 PM    #

4. Why not go to online training? We have. No time issues then.

   — bb    Nov 12, 02:17 PM    #

5. Professors should have a choice, either go to training, or provide professional liability insurance that would indemnify the university if he is sued for Sexual harassment. The insurance company would then no doubt insist on the training.

   — bob    Nov 12, 02:26 PM    #

6. My hero! It’s great he refuses to such a pointless training. I would react in exactly the same way. The university totally mishandled this. t’s a matter of principle now for this professor. If he were at my university, I would set up a fund to collect money to pay his wage while he is on an forced unpaid leave

   — peter    Nov 12, 03:10 PM    #

7. Peter,

   Based on your post, it’s clear that your university allows drinking on campus too, so maybe sexual harassment training wouldn’t have much of an effect on you guys…

   — What?    Nov 12, 03:16 PM    #

8. Its clear the egotistical attitude of this professor falls in line with too many in higher education. It doesn’t seem to matter that its state law and every other state employee has to do it – he’s better than the rest. I hope he loses his job. PS. You’re not better than any of us.

   — gs    Nov 12, 04:03 PM    #

9. Theater of the absurd, from pretty much any point of view, along with most of these posts.

   — CW    Nov 12, 04:04 PM    #

10. sigh This is another example of how a star faculty is surprised to find out that in the eyes of institutional policy, they are just like everyone else. My advice to the great one…stop throwing a tantrum lest your hallowed brow be bent to the menial task of teaching undergraduates.

    — JS    Nov 12, 04:07 PM    #

11. 1. The training is provided online. (see the earlier article)
    2. In my experience faculty are some of the worst offenders. They have great power over their students, especially graduate students.

    Perhaps the professor doth protest too much, methinks.

    — Sue    Nov 12, 04:08 PM    #

12. Good for him! We had mandatory sessions and I found it rather insulting. I have been supervising women and coaching women’s sports for decades and I think I have conducted myself ethically and honorable. I really did not want to spend a day listening to platitudes from a young bureaucrat.

    — Don    Nov 12, 04:08 PM    #

13. Professor McPherson should recognize that his position comes with responsibilities beyond those that he personally endorses. He has to pay taxes. He has to honor the terms of his grants, even when they are stupid. And he has to play ball as a supervisor.

    Prof. McPherson’s position is indefensible. The training puts neither his career nor his reputation at risk. In fact, for at least one reader his tantrum has injured his reputation far more.

    In the original article, Susan Menning, a spokeswoman at the University, said the training “is not just to keep a person from sexually harassing someone else,” It also provides clarification on what sexual harassment is — and isn’t — “and what supervisors should watch out for” among their employees.” That is a reasonable expectation in a world where multi-million dollar lawsuits are routine.

    He has already wasted far more time by not attending the training than he would have by doing it online in the first place.

    — Tad    Nov 12, 04:10 PM    #

14. Bob (#5) raises an interesting idea! Let’s require all faculty to purchase – at their own expense – comprehensive individial liability insurance that will cover all acts and omissions made in the conduct of their professional activities AND indemnify their employer against any and all damages that it may incur.

    Institutions and state governments would save a fortune.

    — RUKidding?    Nov 12, 04:28 PM    #

15. Whether the training is good or poor, and whether it’s just part of a plot by the administration to cover itself – - none of that matters. This is something required by California law. There’s no exception, such as purchasing one’s own liability policy. It’s simply the law, and the university has to make sure its employees take the training.

    and why would this guy want to spend hours and hours arguing, instead of a mere 2 hours to just take the training?

    — jill    Nov 12, 04:31 PM    #

16. I think of it as civil disobedience. Of course, being civilly disobedient might cost you a job. Obviously this is CYA for the university, but just as obviously, they are within their rights as an employer to require all employees to have the training they prescribe. This gent needs to stop tilting at windmills, put on his iPod and go to the training, even if he doesn’t listen.

    — ap    Nov 12, 04:44 PM    #

17. I understand his point, but it seems like a pretty trivial thing to protest. Is this realy the best he can come up with?

    I have liability coverage, and I still have to take this training. It’s pointless and useless, but it takes about 20 minutes online.

    — Brian    Nov 12, 04:44 PM    #

18. As someone who facilitates professional development for faculty and staff, I can understand the professor’s reluctance to participate in a workshop that frequently is little more than a recitation of various laws, rules, and regulations. Too many of these “trainings” focus on what faculty, staff, and others cannot do (the law), rather than on what we should not do (ethics), and values—what we choose not to do as responsible members of educational communities.

    — Tomas de Cali    Nov 12, 04:46 PM    #

19. #15 > and why would this guy want to spend hours and hours arguing, instead of a mere 2 hours to just take the training?

    I am dumbfounded by this response (which as been expressed by many people repeatedly). What part of “it’s a matter of principle” don’t you understand?

    > Whether the training is good or poor, and whether it’s just part of a plot by the administration to cover itself – none of that matters…. It’s simply the law

    I’m at a loss for what to type. So you believe the law is always right? Have you ever heard of the concept of civil disobedience? People who believe a law is unjust — in this case because institutions follow its letter instead of its spirit, leading to wasteful incompetence and corruption — often purposely refuse to follow a law in order to bring about change. That’s called “civil disobedience.” People who engage in it often have an elevated sense of social justice, unlike the many “I was just following orders” people who post here.

    — Reader    Nov 12, 04:47 PM    #

20. I well remember when these “training sessions” first began in the late 1980s. Only male faculty were required to attend because, as our female “trainer” informed us, only males are capable of sexual harassment. Toward the end of the session, some of us obviously were not yet properly trained. The “trainer” stated that the next time we were in the mail room and someone suggested that we go around the corner for a beer, we would be guilty of sexual discrimination if we didn’t invite any female colleagues who might be in the room with us. Upon which one untamed colleague asked: “And what if we do ask?” To which the “trainer” replied with a straight face: “In that case you would be guilty of sexual harassment.”

    — James D. Williams    Nov 12, 05:15 PM    #

21. Personally, I think #19 is giving ProfessorMcPherson much to much credit. “Elevated sense of social justice”-please. This is all about his ego. His reason for not going as stated above is that attending will put his “career and reputation at risk”. This has nothing to do with the greater good.

    — mary ellen    Nov 12, 05:16 PM    #

22. Re #19. Given Mr. McPherson’s comments, I cannot judge whether he is engaged in civil disobedience. I would be very interested in why he is choosing to go down this path. Does he disagree with the state-mandated law? Does he feel the training he would receive is ineffective and he’s holding out for better? Does he oppose the rigidity of the scheduling? Is he concerned that he will be offended by the language used in the class? Does he not believe sexual harrassment is a problem worth trying to prevent? Unless he can articulate his reasons for refusing to take the class, we can neither support or reject his decision. As I read the above comments I am struck by how the lenses of our own experience shape our views of his stance.

    — Kathleen    Nov 12, 05:26 PM    #

23. #20: So, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. But that is another discussion.

    I think it’s time for professor, as others have suggested, to put on his IPod and get the darned thing done. He could have done it by now and forgotten it given all the time he has spent fussing. Do I think it is a load of male bovine body waste? Sure, but I like my job, so I did mine when told. There are more worthy battles to fight than bureaucratic CYA.

    — Dances With Books    Nov 12, 05:28 PM    #

24. #14:
    That’s a brilliant idea. Educational institutions are apparently already busting at the seams with desperate wanna-be employees, so let’s make people pay to work in the system… I’ll even give up my own seat as I flee to the better paid ranks of industry. I teach because I love it – but I don’t love it THAT much!

    — Zang    Nov 12, 05:28 PM    #

25. I was going to respond to #19, but, #21 did it for me. Good job.

    — Kaybar    Nov 12, 05:29 PM    #

26. For those of you that think that SH workshops are pointless and a waste of time…lets not forget that some people can be stupid and do stupid things…therefore they need things spelled out for them. That is who this class is for. Obviously SH happened enough times that CA made it a legal requirement.

    — wc    Nov 12, 05:37 PM    #

27. I moved to adjunct status to avoid this institutional nonsense. I work a set number of hours per week. If the univ. wants to make me attend useless programs, then an hour I’d spend teaching gets cut. “Class canceled.”

    — Pete    Nov 12, 05:41 PM    #

28. Actually, Inside Higher Ed has a much more balanced account of the matter:
    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/uc i
    As for why someone wouldn’t just take the 20 minutes to go through training that’s required by law, ask Rosa Parks why she didn’t simply give up her seat when she was required to by law. Would you call her a whiner?

    — midwest prof    Nov 12, 05:51 PM    #

29. ok…he should go if it helps inform teachers on an issue that has complelxities that go beyond commons sense…then let’s have another “training” session on plaigiairism (faculty and student sections)…and yet another on rigor and standards in teaching and grading…and maybe one on collegiality in an age of corporate mentality…all of which are among a number of critical issues in need of serious attention.

    — h.c.ecco    Nov 12, 05:56 PM    #

30. Much as I loathe our training, and I do, I’d hardly equate refusing to go with refusing to sit at the back of the bus. Legally mandated training to protect universities’ butts is not exactly equivalent to 200 years of forced labor followed by another 100 of forced separation in public places. Give me a break.

    — Eliza    Nov 12, 05:59 PM    #

31. in most cases such training is mandatory. unfortunately on many of our campuses most of the cases of sexual harassment and charges of discrimination are against faculty. lest you doubt this, it can be confirmed by your HR director or you can review previous chronicle articles where such activity has documented. to refuse such training begs for criticism.

    — ar    Nov 12, 07:51 PM    #

32. perhaps the mandated sr training is not as sophisticated as we would like, but there is still a great need for it. SR is typically more subtle now but it still exists — witness the former Prez of Harvard who created a very hostile work environment for women faculty…

    — soc prof    Nov 12, 08:16 PM    #

33. I agree with #26. You might think that sexual harassment training is a stupid waste of time because you’re never going to harass someone. But then think of all of those idiots who did offend and then said, “well I didn’t realize that my actions were hurtful or harassment.” Better safe than sorry.

    Also, it’s very easy to say that sexual harassment isn’t a common enough problem to receive so much attention, but when you’re on the receiving end you realize a) it’s a lot more common than people realize and b) training for everyone is worth preventing a single instance for one person. It is that unpleasant and harmful.

    — Katherine    Nov 12, 08:27 PM    #

34. Is there any evidence that sexual harrassament training decreases the prevalance of sexual harassment (however it may be defined)?

    No I did not think so!

    — Bob    Nov 12, 10:17 PM    #

35. Here are some of explanations for his unexplainable behavior:
    1. He is throwing tantrum like a kid to get some attention.
    2. He does not know how to use computers so he cannot take the training online.
    3. He is complete idiot who enjoys wasting everyone’s time just to boost his ego.
    4. He is totally bored in his project or run out of ideas so he wants to get some excitement out of his childish behavior.

    — JJ    Nov 12, 10:32 PM    #

36. He’s a very successful molecular-bio researcher. Instead of cashing in at a drug company, he’s working in academia, getting paid maybe half or a third what he could earn. He’s got a lab to run – let me tell you, that’s a 70 hour a week job, easy. He’s a success as a scientist because he thinks for himself and doesn’t believe things just because people tell him to.

    We should all admire this behavior, it’s part of a professor’s job to be difficult when it comes to the truth. People who don’t understand that should be in a different profession.

    The administration should remember their job is to make it easier for professors to teach and do research, not harder.

    — Random Professor    Nov 13, 02:19 AM    #

37. I don’t see this as much different from the loyalty oaths that many state universities required in the 50s (and I believe California still has). If you want to protest, do so with a full sense of moral superiority. However, don’t be surprised if you get fired. Academic freedom just isn’t worth as much as the public thinks it is.

    — p    Nov 13, 02:43 AM    #

38. I love it!! A “state-mandated training class in sexual-harassment prevention” in grab-‘em-by-the-bum Arnie’s politically correct fiefdom. And let’s not hear any talk of molecules “bonding”, either.

    — Don Thompson    Nov 13, 04:30 AM    #

39. why not fight for a worthwhile cause like adjuncts not being treated like second class citizens.That is worth loosing ajob over.

    — Diana Ramseyer    Nov 13, 05:25 AM    #

40. UC paid out over $15 million in Employment Practices Liability claims in FY2007 (www.ucop.edu/annual reports). And there’s over $30 million in pending claims for the same FY. So, with all due respect to those on this site who “get it”, there are obviously quite a few who do not.

    All UC is trying to do is prevent these situations. This improves the work environment and shows they are attempting to be good stewards of the resources they have been provided.

    — Anne Mulholland    Nov 13, 06:48 AM    #

41. I wish I was his dean.

    — Bill    Nov 13, 08:16 AM    #

42. Come on – the sexual harassment training material is merely common sense. I doubt if anyone who sexually harasses others does so because they didn’t realize what they were doing was harassment! Our University has gone to online training. Again – a waste of time, but at least I ca choose when to waste my time!

    — Susan    Nov 13, 08:21 AM    #

43. I agree with those who say this has become more about the professor’s arrogance and ego than it is about the training itself. While I am not suggesting this individual has ever engaged in sexual harassment, it is this type of self-important arrogance that often leads individuals to behave in those ways. I get very tired of the few individuals out there who think they should be absolved from the rules that apply to everyone else. I used to work for a man like that, and he made everyone in our office miserable… and could easily have been brought up on sexual harassment charges a number of times. This is just another example of why many people outside the academy question the value of tenure.

    — Greg    Nov 13, 08:49 AM    #

44. $43 has an excellent point. It’s time for professors to experience 12-month, non-tenured positions. The prima dona attitude gets really old and does not benefit the students.

    — tom    Nov 13, 10:12 AM    #

45. University professors are experts in raising self-interest to the point of principle, it has been said. Come on—this is no more a matter of civil rights than any other mandatory employee training. Personally, I don’t like a lot of things I’m required to do as a condition of employment. If the requirements become too unreasonable in my judgment, I am free to find employment elsewhere. But to suggest that taking sexual harassment prevention training is akin to being denied employment on the basis of sex or race, or being forced to endure a clearly hostile work environment, or the like, is ridiculous. If this guy wants to cast himself as a martyr to the cause (exactly what cause?), when in fact he’s merely a whiner, let him. There are problems we need urgently to work on, and this isn’t one of them.

    — BP    Nov 13, 10:14 AM    #

46. California now requires the training as part of state law. It is not the university pushing it. The training also decreases liability if sued, which leaves more money for the university to give to faculty and students. I would send the professor home without pay.

    — G Lovett    Nov 13, 10:26 AM    #

47. Regarding post #1… I’ve worked with Alex since 1987 and yes, he does bench work. He’s likely at the lab bench right now, pipette in hand. He’s the real deal.

    — BC    Nov 13, 11:13 AM    #

48. It is simply amazing to me that many of the posts that suport the professor’s position ignore the fact that the requirement for sexual harassment training is STATE LAW!!!!! If they have an issue with being forced to take the trainig, blame the members of the state legislature, not the Univesity for mandating the training, in accordance with the law. Sometimes, academics don’t have a clue!!!!!!!! They tend to live in their own world devoid of reality.

    — Samuel    Nov 13, 11:26 AM    #

49. Soooo, according to some of who have posted comments this is simply a case of Dr. McPherson’s arrogance, “inflated ego,” that he is a “bonehead”, “idiot,” etc. These immature comments ignore the real issue and thus are more applicable to those who wrote them.

    The fundamental problem is that this is a state mandate in the first place. I and virtually all members of the academy do not need to go to yet another “sensitivity” workshop to understand what sexual harassment is and what behaviors are unacceptable. Clear explanations, policies and procedures on the subject are already fully explained in the faculty and students handbooks published by academic institutions throughout the country. We have to acknowledge receipt of the faculty manual at the time of hire and agree to abide by the policies they contain.

    Virtually all faculty already know what behavior is prohibited, and attending yet another “sensitivity” workshop is not likely to eliminate or reduce the number of those who nonetheless choose to engage in inappropriate conduct.

    I and many others have a fundamental problem with the notion that just because a few individuals engage in unprofessional or problematic behavior, a state has to adopt yet another intrusive law that applies to everyone.

    This is PC at its worst and I applaud the fact that Professor McPherson has taked a principled stand on this issue.

    — ST    Nov 13, 11:38 AM    #

50. I find it ridiculous that this professor feels he’s better than the rest of his colleagues — so much that he doesn’t have to follow the rules of the workplace. That he’s a university researcher may render him more noble than a corporate researcher—but that doesn’t mean he’s exempt from the rules of his workplace.

    I also don’t understand all this resistance to Sexual Harrassment training. My institution has a short and simple online presentation, not only informing us of university’s policies and laws but also detailing scenarios and examples of what’s inappropriate behavior. I know many think avoiding the harrassment of others is a no-brainer but even as a early-30s woman, I learned some things! And I took my share of Women’s Studies courses in the early 90s. (Though I must say, that account of SH training in the late 80s chilled me to the bone—thank dog feminism’s evolved since then)

    So, I plainly don’t get his “matter of principle.” If his institution can’t find a way to make it fairly convenient to disseminate the info—that’s another thing.

    — madame ojo    Nov 13, 12:16 PM    #

51. #29: What standards? I have a colleague in my department who states in his syllibus that every student is “guaranteed an A-” if they simply come to class regularly.

    With regard to the professor’s refusal to participate, please note that many universities require faculty in supervisory roles—such as lab directors—to undergo sexual harassment training every year. Perhaps this professor believes that he’s had sufficient training and really doesn’t need to waste another two hours.

    — James D. Williams    Nov 13, 12:40 PM    #

52. Perhaps the professor has never been sexually harassed on the job and sees no point in learning how to fend of unwanted advances.

    — Robert Beckett    Nov 13, 02:31 PM    #

53. Ah…I do remember those hearings, the ones for a dean accused of sexual harassment. They were the first hearings ever held on our campus. Two committees, five faculty members each. In the end, the Provost and the Chancellor, along with the system attorney met with both committees together. The Provost, upon hearing the committees’ findings, asserted that “Sexual harassment was in the eye of the beholder.” Now, there was a fellow who needed to get to this training. In the years that followed, everybody was indeed required to attend training. I am not sure if it helped any of us but the guy accused of sexual harassment went on to a couple of other schools. I hope that the faculty and students at his new schools had access to this training.

    — Ann    Nov 13, 03:07 PM    #

54. If attending this training is a condition of employment, then he should be placed on leave without pay until he satisfies this condition.

    I just met with a young female student today who was a victim of sexual harassment. She still felt great embarrassment over the incident. It had a profound, lasting affect on her.

    We all know that the training programs could be better. But there is a reason for these programs, and she was sitting across the desk from me this morning.

    Attend the training, professor, and let’s all get back to work.

    — Hoover    Nov 13, 04:16 PM    #

55. The law is arrogant. The law is an ass. The prof. is being an arrogant ass. Apuleius.

    — tony Mora    Nov 13, 04:22 PM    #

56. I have known Professor McPherson since 1981. Professor McPherson has dedicated his career toward improving science for undergraduates, graduates, and postdocs of ALL GENDERS, NATIONALITIES, CREEDS, AND RELIGIONS. Professor McPherson’s has dedicated years of service and he has an outstanding track record working to foster diversity in science. Surely 30 years of dedicated service should mean more to the University than a two hour computerized course? Professor McPherson has developed methods and techniques that have led to the development of pharmaceuticals and our understanding of the atomic structures of proteins. I ask the University to please consider Professor McPherson’s dedication and service to fostering diversity in science. I hope the University will formulate a compromise. and ask the University administration to please consider Professor McPherson’s countless accomplishments in promoting diversity in science. Surely the University administration is clever enough to formulate a resolution so that Professor McPherson can focus on contributing to the scientific challenges that this nation faces.

    — LA    Nov 13, 06:02 PM    #

57. I AM A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT TRAINER FOR A STATE AGENCY. So, there’s my bias and expertise! I am amazed at the “ignorant” statements and behaviors perpetrated by those who sexually harrass against those who are receivers of such indefensible behavior. The financial penalties alone are substantial. Attorney’s fees. Class fees. Ethics board exams. Fines. Auditing. Affiliated Monitors. Not to mention reputation, marriage problems, emotional stress.

    HOWEVER, having said that, I myself have sat through three insipid trainings at my own institution. The issue here, is, if no complaints have EVER been filed toward a participant, WHY must one take, retake, repeat, the same course again, and again, and again. Outside of substantive changes to the law or application of the law, or university conduct code, could there not be a “system,” like driver’s licenses, that you don’t have to retake the class if there have been “no violations” within so many years? Academicianss are not village idiots. The classes have become a laughing matter (not the topic itself), and even the HR trainer at that school was essentially getting through the requirement with the least drudgery as possible. I get where the prof is coming from. Don’t touch students. Don’t make sexist statements. Don’t abuse your power. Got it, got it, got it, three times over. It’s not the policy itself, it’s the insanely rigid implementation of it which is up for debate.

    — Debby Downer    Nov 13, 07:09 PM    #

58. Fire the jack-ass. As I stated in a post made on the occasion of the last time this story was online; a person who purports to be a competent teacher; who simultaneously takes the position that he cannot be taught, is a complete fraud. Get rid of him.

    — Bill    Nov 13, 08:28 PM    #

59. To # 56. Your description of all the significant contributions by Professor McPherson to the advancement of science is not at all relevant. State law requires employees to undergo sexual harassment training. If any employee refuses, thats’ grounds for termination. It’s as simple as that!!!!!

    — Samuel    Nov 13, 11:35 PM    #

60. Debbie Downer’s comment is right on. Sexual Harassment is a serious problem on campus as anywhere else.

    But mandatory training of the sort UC-I requires is insulting and a legal fig-leaf, not a well thought out policy.

    Macpherson should be commended for taking a principled stand on this. Those people who attack him, or say “it’s the law” have forgotten that America is all about doing what you believe and changing bad law.

    — Professor    Nov 14, 02:52 AM    #

61. Dear Professor (#60): Civil disobedience is based in the idea that one breaks an unjust law, using the power of the state against itself by being seen to be the victim of power used unjustly. In the cases of Ghandi and King, the power of their positions came from the fact that they represented groups who had been systematically excluded from political processes that had institutionalized gross injustices against those groups. Absent that context, it’s hard to see how law-breaking can be justified, especially in a case like this where compliance is, at worst, a minor inconvenience. Surely, Macpherson can’t be suggesting that he has been systematically excluded from the halls of power, or that he has no other realistic options available to change the law. The fact that he does not appear to be seeking anything more than special treatment makes it much harder to sympathize with the “principled stand” argument.

    — BP    Nov 14, 11:35 AM    #

62. #61 you are wrong. You argument does not define anything but does support forced reeducation by the state. You support this kind of treatment so his civil disobedience is against people like you.

    — American Man    Nov 14, 11:42 AM    #

63. Dear American Man: Nonsense. Your Orwellian use of a phrase like “forced reeducation” significantly overstates, and weakens, your case. It also offensively diminishes the instances where real “forced reeducation” takes place, and insults the intelligence of those of us who can hear ideas expressed and critically evaluate them for ourselves. Sitting through a lecture in which information is presented in no way “forces” anyone to agree with that information.

    — BP    Nov 14, 01:18 PM    #

64. Totally ignoring a law is the best way to get rid of it.

    — peter    Nov 15, 09:38 AM    #

65. Kudos to the professor. I hope those who have levied the castigating remarks against the professor, complete with gender slurs, fall under the umbrella of sexual harassment, so apparently you folks didn’t fare to well in your course. It is an absurd construct applied disparately and suffers from gender bias in its execution- a sure sign of a bad law that should be rebuffed and changed.

    — hhgozno    Nov 16, 08:51 PM    #

66. The arrogance of privilege. Take a stand on something that matters, like poverty (yes, even if you make 150K per year), the environment, or health disparities; anything that is important, unlike this oh-so-bold non-issue…

    — enkaybee    Nov 17, 09:47 AM    #

67. If it were not for a facist streak running through the far left that demands everyone believe as they do there would be none of this worthless foced training. Who are you #61 that you feel you have a right to force people into training for ideas and notions you feel we must know. If you can do that then I want to force you into Christian training and see how you like it.

    — American Man    Nov 17, 12:20 PM    #

68. I must have misunderstood the purpose of this training. I always thought it was to make sure you use the appropriate methods while sexually harrassing.

    — CB    Nov 17, 02:16 PM    #

69. Having just completed an online sexual (and other) harassment training as a condition of my employment, I can testify to the utter inanity of such a method. Gee, really, I’m not supposed to hit on my students?

    This professor is not refusing to endure this nonsense because of ego. He’s doing it to show how bullying and moronic the whole dumb enterprise is.

    — Person with Brain    Nov 17, 04:51 PM    #

70. Heavens, #67. Someone requires you to spend an hour or two in training (however well or poorly designed) that’s designed to protect the university and you from expensive and potentially career-threatening trouble, and you’re throwing around over-heated rhetoric like “facist” and “forced training.” Next step is the Gulag, eh? What utter rubbish. Come back to earth and, together, let’s put our creative energy to solving problems that really matter. Really, this isn’t one of them.

    — BP    Nov 18, 07:22 AM    #

Previous: California Colleges Join Preparation for Tomorrow's Earthquake
Next: 'Brainwashed' Students Oust New Hampshire Treasurer