From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 12:16:05 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Due process at state universities
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 17:05:12 GMT
Last year, Steven Brack a student at Ohio State Univeristy was
expelled from his univeristy. Talking with him via the Net and on the
phone, I was astounded at how sloppy OSU was with due process. For
example, they didn't even tell him what he was charged with until he
asked. Then they listed things he was accused of doing and (vague)
rules that we was accused of breaking but would not say which
action(s) they thought violated which rule(s). Finally, when he was
expelled, they listed only the rules they had determined he had
violated but included no "finding of fact" as to which actions they
had determined he had actually done. (As far as anyone knows Steven
was expelled for posting the rude, but Constitutionally protected,
word "fuck" to a open newsgroup.)
Now due process here at U. of Illinois is being questioned. Here is a
short excerpt from the Daily Illini on Oct 29, p 5:
===================================
Bryan Savage, an Urbana attorney who has represented students arrested
during last year's demonstrations, said that students' rights to due
process have been violated. Savage quoted the Procedures for the
Subcommittee on Undergraduate Student Conduct of the Senate Committee
on Student Discipline pamphlet as saying "a quorum for hearing shall
be a majority of authorized members." But Savage said that while the
quorum for the subcommittee is 10 people, only seven were present at
one of the hearings. Savage also referred to a memo from Nancy
Desmond, chairperson of the Subcommittee on Undergraduate Student
Conduct, which said that students "will not be allowed to question
directly. They can suggest questions to the chair, and (the
chairperson) can ask the question" if the chairperson pleases. But
the procedures pamphlet also states that the accused student has the
right to the "opportunity to confront evidence and question any
witnesses that offer oral testimony," Savage said.
=========================
I wonder how many students receive unfair hearings. My guess is every
hearing over the last few years at OSU and U. of Illinois has been
unfair. I think part of the problem is that the hearings are so secret
("to protect the privacy of the student") that the procedures can get
off-track and no one knows for years.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
=================
The letters from Ohio State University to Steven Brack including his
letter of dismissial. Also comments on the letters.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/cases brack@ohio-state.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 14:30:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Due process at state universities
Message-ID: <9211021926.AA24202@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 18:26:14 GMT
[stuff deleted]
>
> I wonder how many students receive unfair hearings. My guess is every
> hearing over the last few years at OSU and U. of Illinois has been
> unfair. I think part of the problem is that the hearings are so secret
> ("to protect the privacy of the student") that the procedures can get
> off-track and no one knows for years.
>
> - Carl
Every hearing? Really, Carl, I think you've just made a hasty
generalization. To say that _every_ hearing at OSU is flawed and
that _every_ hearing at U. of Illinois is flawed, based on exactly
ONE incident from each institution, is more than hasty, it's
irresponsible and sloppy. Before making such sweeping statements, I
think you should do more research. The Brack case at OSU was an
undergraduate case; it's my understanding that seperate procedures
exist for graduate and faculty cases. I can't speak for U. of I.,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it also has seperate sets of
procedures.
Bob
--
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil (614) 692-8256 AV 850-8256
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Defense Resource Management System (DRMS)
Defense Information Technology Service Ofc., DITSO-CO-BCC
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 15:16:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Due process at state universities
Message-ID: <1992Nov2.201645.22163@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 20:16:45 GMT
kadie@uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> My guess is every hearing over the last few years at OSU and U. of
> Illinois has been unfair.
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>To say that _every_ hearing at OSU is flawed and that _every_ hearing
>at U. of Illinois is flawed, based on exactly ONE incident from each
>institution, is more than hasty, it's irresponsible and sloppy.
Indeed, that is why I prefaced my remarks with "my guess is" and
detailed the basis of that guess.
[...]
>The Brack case at OSU was an undergraduate case; it's my
>understanding that seperate procedures exist for graduate and faculty
>cases. I can't speak for U. of I., but I wouldn't be surprised if it
>also has seperate sets of procedures.
[...]
I wasn't thinking of faculty cases. At U. of Illinois the procedure
for undergraduates and graduates is the same. None of Ohio State U.'s
letters to Steven Brack suggest that the procedures for undergraduates
and graduates differ. Everything comes from the "University Judicial
Panel" and the "Dean of Student Life".
In any case, the basis of my guess is not just the evidence that the
procedures of these specific hearing boards are defective. It also is
based on the theory that all judicial processes are likely to go
off-track from time-to-time and that student judicial processes don't
seem to have a way quickly get back on track. In other words, their
defects in procedure are likely to accumulate quite a while before
being corrected.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
=================
The letters from Ohio State University to Steven Brack including his
letter of dismissial. Also comments on the letters.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/cases brack@ohio-state.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 15:42:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 19:57:05 GMT
In article , john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
|> This is outrageous! If this was the policy -- and I certainly hope it
|> is not the policy anyplace -- it would be perfectly reasonable for some
|> bozo to complain to my supervisor that something silly, say my wearing
|> a pink shirt every Friday, was harassment, and my supervisor would be
|> required to force me to no longer wear pink shirts?!?
It is policy because it is the law regarding sexual harassment, not
harassment in general. The unwelcome behavior must be of a sexual
nature. In the case of sexual harassment complaints, the supervisor is
required to tell you that another employee finds your behavior of a
sexual nature directed at them unwelcome and that you should stop it.
If the supervisor were smart, he would explain to you the risk that
your behavior is putting the company under and putting you in
particular under. Depending on the nature of the behavior being
complained about, and the company's proactiveness, the supervisor may
also tell you that if you continue the behavior with anyone, you risk
losing your job very quickly. If employees had previously been given
education and information about sexual harassment and some examples of
harassing behavior, and you engaged in that behavior, you might be
reprimanded or lose your job immediately.
In some long discussions with some corporate human resources officers,
I discovered that the law does not require that the person subjected to
the unwelcome behavior report the behavior to the company before they
can take other action. In other words, a company can be held liable
under the law for the sexually harassing behavior of one of its
employess regardless of whether or not the company knew the behavior
was taking place. This is the technical extreme of the law: a person
could be subjected to unwelcome, but trivial behavior of a sexual
nature one time, and they could immediately file a lawsuit against the
company and the person individually. Companies defend against this
extreme situation (any other less extreme ones) by having an in-company
mechanism for dealing with sexually harassing behavior, and educating
their employees about sexual harassment and its consequences. This
would presumably make it a lot harder for a jury to find for the
complainant, particularly if the behavior deemed unwelcome was trivial
and non-repetitive.
The point that we as system administrators and managers must address is
the following: is our task in this arena to do everything possible to
avoid a lawsuit against the company or university no matter how
ludicrous, but technically possible, the scenario; or is our task to
manage the system in a reasonable way, doing our best to balance the
rights and resposibilities of all the users in accordance with company
or university policies?
The first choice leads us to all sorts of ridiculous restrictions on
the users, as our policies must become ever more extreme to cover
increasingly remote possibilities of ever more extreme and ludicrous
lawsuit scenarios, as if the mere filing of a lawsuit guarantees that
the company will be found liable and be forced to pay out huge sums of
money. The second choice does leave the institution open to the
extreme ends of the technical possibilities under the law, but IMO,
preserves far more valuable rights and freedoms while working to
prevent the more egregious and commonplace or "reasonable" wrongs that
the laws are intending to address.
As system administrators or managers, I think we should all seek advice
from company or university officers empowered to set out the
institution's positions and response to things like sexual harassment.
If the company has an "avoid a lawsuit at any cost, to heck with user's
rights" mentality, then we are pretty much stuck with the logical
consequences of that. If the institution's position is that it should
take reasonable steps to avoid the obvious and egregious behaviors that
lawsuits can be won on, but it should also preserve the rights of
others as best it can, then we need not spend our time having
nightmares about feeling that we have no choice but to implement
draconian, fascist policies, and vigorously enforcing them. Individual
companies or universities are going to have differing levels of risk
acceptance when it comes to lawsuits. After all, any company or
university could theoretically be sued out of existence for any number
of reasonable things it does every day. I think our task is to get a
clear statement from our company or university about the level of risk
it is willing to tolerate, and implement policies in accordance with
that.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 17:00:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Parts of the Re: USENET Readership report for Oct 92
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 21:44:31 GMT
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Oct 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 190000 5837 90% 10 158.1 100% 0.00 12.1% news.announce.newusers
> 2 160000 4971 83% 1002 1958.2 17% 0.02 10.3% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 160000 4965 82% 1666 2087.5 36% 0.02 10.3% misc.forsale
> 4 130000 4015 68% 1752 4192.5 41% 0.04 8.3% alt.sex
> 5 120000 3855 84% 6 262.9 67% 0.00 8.0% news.answers
> 6 120000 3680 83% 131 223.3 0% 0.00 7.6% rec.humor.funny
> 7 100000 3200 87% 1024 1790.1 19% 0.03 6.6% comp.windows.x
> 8 95000 2955 81% 2195 5231.7 11% 0.09 6.1% rec.humor
> 9 86000 2667 69% 5 75.3 0% 0.00 5.5% rec.arts.erotica
> 10 84000 2619 89% 1111 2320.5 14% 0.05 5.4% news.groups
[...]
> 269 26000 823 79% 328 917.1 44% 0.05 1.7% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 649 16000 491 59% 203 706.8 48% 0.05 1.0% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 693 15000 476 75% 4 60.8 75% 0.01 1.0% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
>1443 4500 140 50% 6 307.3 0% 0.07 0.3% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1635 1600 50 18% 17 39.7 0% 0.01 0.1% k12.ed.life-skills
>1636 1600 50 9% 10 11.3 0% 0.00 0.1% houston.eats
>1637 1600 49 15% 205 312.9 29% 0.06 0.1% aus.flame
>1638 1600 49 13% 19 34.9 0% 0.01 0.1% aus.snow
>1639 1600 49 11% 23 42.2 9% 0.01 0.1% de.comp.gnu
>1640 1600 49 10% 13 137.4 0% 0.02 0.1% de.newusers
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 17:22:23 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Nov 92 21:12:28 GMT
In article john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>}What is acceptable or unacceptable behavior is essentially entirely in
>}the hands of the person subjected to the behavior. Supervisors and
>}special officers do not make determinations of the acceptability of
>}behavior.
>This is outrageous! If this was the policy -- and I certainly hope it
>is not the policy anyplace -- it would be perfectly reasonable for some
>bozo to complain to my supervisor that something silly, say my wearing
>a pink shirt every Friday, was harassment, and my supervisor would be
>required to force me to no longer wear pink shirts?!?
No, we're required to *arbitrate* the dispute. When I get a complaint
I have four primary options:
1) Ask the person being complained about to do something
2) Tell the complainer that they are out of bounds.
3) Refer the matter to my supervisors (if it has major legal or
policy implications)
4) set up a meeting between the people involved.
Which option is a matter for my professional judgement. If the users
aren't satisfied with my response, they in turn have several options,
including going to my boss, the department chair, and perhaps the
appropriate grievance committees.
In addition, there are informal options, such as asking one's
faculty advisor or professor to intercede.
Of course, our doors are always open, even if a user has been a
problem in the past. I can't imagine how it works at sites where
people don't talk to each other
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 17:41:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "Political" expression
Message-ID: <199211022241.AA25061@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 22:37:15 GMT
Is it possible that many of the regulations ostensibly prohibiting "political"
activity by email, etc. are really aimed at protecting the tax exemption of the
university in question by barring _partisan_ political activity (similar rules
are often in effect for campus mail systems, and contain nothing which bars
political expression _per se_?
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 18:05:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "Political" expression
Message-ID: <1992Nov2.230500.25508@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 23:05:00 GMT
U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU writes:
>Is it possible that many of the regulations ostensibly prohibiting
>"political" activity by email, etc. are really aimed at protecting
>the tax exemption of the university in question by barring _partisan_
>political activity
Universities in the U.S. frequently provide a forum for partisan
politics. I don't think there is much of a risk as long as the
university doesn't exclude viewpoints. E.g. If it lets the Campus
Republicans bring Bush to campus for a speech; it should let the
Campus Democrates bring Clinton to campus for a speech. The important
thing is that the university, itself, is neutral.
(Public universities don't have worry about their tax status, but do
have to worry about the First Amendment.)
> (similar rules are often in effect for campus mail
>systems, and contain nothing which bars political expression _per
>se_?
Most inter-campus mail system that I know allow only mail related to
school business. This is likely modivated by 1) costs 2) a wish
to avoid facilitating labor union organizing.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Campus Mail -- Perry v. Perry
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 18:52:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 23:00:55 GMT
In article , betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
|> No, we're required to *arbitrate* the dispute. When I get a complaint
|> I have four primary options:
|> 1) Ask the person being complained about to do something
|> 2) Tell the complainer that they are out of bounds.
|> 3) Refer the matter to my supervisors (if it has major legal or
|> policy implications)
|> 4) set up a meeting between the people involved.
|>
|> Which option is a matter for my professional judgement. If the users
|> aren't satisfied with my response, they in turn have several options,
|> including going to my boss, the department chair, and perhaps the
|> appropriate grievance committees.
|> In addition, there are informal options, such as asking one's
|> faculty advisor or professor to intercede.
|> Of course, our doors are always open, even if a user has been a
|> problem in the past. I can't imagine how it works at sites where
|> people don't talk to each other
What you say is true of employee or user complaints in general, and
some of your options may be included in your university's sexual
harassment policies. However, in the case of complaints of unwelcome
behavior of a sexual nature (some user displaying sexually oriented
images on their screen in a public lab, for example), I think your
options are much more limited if you wish to reduce the possibility
that the university, and perhaps you personally, will be named in a
sexual harassment lawsuit. The reason that a supervisor would tell an
employee to cease behavior that is of an unwelcome sexual nature is
because the supervisor is trying to defend the institution's interest
in not being sued (and possibly losing the suit) for sexual
harassment. In your list of options above, in the case of sexual
harassment, as opposed to other forms of complaint, you definitely do
not want to exercise option #2. That is probably the fastest way to
get your institution involved in a formal sexual harassment complaint
either with the EEOC or through a lawsuit. Option #4 is only slightly
less risky, since the reason the person complained to you in the first
place is because they probably did not feel comfortable confronting the
person subjecting them to the unwelcome sexual behavior. In your case,
since you are a system administrator and most likely will not be the
supervisor of the user making the unwelcome sexual behavior complaint,
the wisest thing for you to do is to take that user's complaint
straight to his/her supervisor and/or the university EEO officer or
whomever is empowered to informally resolve sexual harassment
complaints for students. Basically, in the case of complaints of
unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, always do option #3 if you are
not that person's supervisor, because it does have major legal
implications. Option #1 is a good first step if you are the supervisor
of one, some, or all of the parties involved.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 2 20:29:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel)
Subject: Re: Due process at state universities
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 01:15:50 GMT
Does anyone think that the guy who was expelled form the U of I because of
the demosntration would have been had he been a white frat-boy from a
wealthy Chicago suburb? Not me.
-Terry
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 06:31:15 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.105909.17167@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Nov 92 10:59:09 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
: In article , john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
: |> This is outrageous! If this was the policy -- and I certainly hope it
: |> is not the policy anyplace -- it would be perfectly reasonable for some
: |> bozo to complain to my supervisor that something silly, say my wearing
: |> a pink shirt every Friday, was harassment, and my supervisor would be
: |> required to force me to no longer wear pink shirts?!?
:
: It is policy because it is the law regarding sexual harassment, not
: harassment in general. The unwelcome behavior must be of a sexual
Which is where most of the problems come from, viz, saying one sort of
herassment is worst than another.
: nature. In the case of sexual harassment complaints, the supervisor is
: required to tell you that another employee finds your behavior of a
: sexual nature directed at them unwelcome and that you should stop it.
"Directed at them" will presumably kill off any fuss about
workstation screens and netnews.
If it was applied in many cases.
: If the supervisor were smart, he would explain to you the risk that
: your behavior is putting the company under and putting you in
: particular under. Depending on the nature of the behavior being
Surely the first step is to assess the legitimacy of the complaint,
and wther the complainent can simply ignore it, as is the case
with email from a specific address.
: complained about, and the company's proactiveness, the supervisor may
: also tell you that if you continue the behavior with anyone, you risk
: losing your job very quickly. If employees had previously been given
: education and information about sexual harassment and some examples of
: harassing behavior, and you engaged in that behavior, you might be
: reprimanded or lose your job immediately.
(Or give such advice and treatment to the complainent, if they are found
to be the guilty party)
:
: In some long discussions with some corporate human resources officers,
: I discovered that the law does not require that the person subjected to
: the unwelcome behavior report the behavior to the company before they
: can take other action. In other words, a company can be held liable
: under the law for the sexually harassing behavior of one of its
: employess regardless of whether or not the company knew the behavior
: was taking place. This is the technical extreme of the law: a person
Or rather for a claim of such behaviour, by an individual.
: could be subjected to unwelcome, but trivial behavior of a sexual
: nature one time, and they could immediately file a lawsuit against the
: company and the person individually. Companies defend against this
: extreme situation (any other less extreme ones) by having an in-company
: mechanism for dealing with sexually harassing behavior, and educating
: their employees about sexual harassment and its consequences. This
: would presumably make it a lot harder for a jury to find for the
: complainant, particularly if the behavior deemed unwelcome was trivial
: and non-repetitive.
:
Or a further extreme, they just file a lawsuit, with only their word
this can be just a harmful in the company's view.
: The point that we as system administrators and managers must address is
: the following: is our task in this arena to do everything possible to
: avoid a lawsuit against the company or university no matter how
: ludicrous, but technically possible, the scenario; or is our task to
: manage the system in a reasonable way, doing our best to balance the
: rights and resposibilities of all the users in accordance with company
: or university policies?
:
: The first choice leads us to all sorts of ridiculous restrictions on
: the users, as our policies must become ever more extreme to cover
: increasingly remote possibilities of ever more extreme and ludicrous
: lawsuit scenarios, as if the mere filing of a lawsuit guarantees that
: the company will be found liable and be forced to pay out huge sums of
In the first case you might just as well not bother if someone really
wants to file a lawsuit they can probably find a way to do it!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 06:43:14 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.111006.17343@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Nov 92 11:10:06 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
: }The rules are complaint oriented for what I feel is a good reason: the
: }law does not define specific acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, nor
: }does it require employers or schools or any one else to define what is
: }acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
:
: }As an alternative to direct confrontation, the person subjected to the
: }behavior has the option of expressing their dissatisfaction to their
: }supervisor or teacher or other direct or designated authority. It is
: }then up to that authority to convey the unwelcome behavior
: }message to the person(s) engaging in it.
:
: }What is acceptable or unacceptable behavior is essentially entirely in
: }the hands of the person subjected to the behavior. Supervisors and
: }special officers do not make determinations of the acceptability of
: }behavior.
:
: This is outrageous! If this was the policy -- and I certainly hope it
: is not the policy anyplace -- it would be perfectly reasonable for some
: bozo to complain to my supervisor that something silly, say my wearing
: a pink shirt every Friday, was harassment, and my supervisor would be
: required to force me to no longer wear pink shirts?!?
:
I don't get how you come to the conclusion that the supervisor must
up hold the complaint.
The post you quote is for the supervisor to relay the message from the
complainent to you. If they are unwilling (or unable) to say so directly.
What is outrageous is pre-determining that certain things must constitute
herassment.
IMHO herassment is only herassment after a person has been asked to
stop behaviour directed at another, but that other person (or someone
instructed to act on their behalf)
How can wearing a pink shirt (or any other colour) be behaviour directed
at another person?
Given that fact that people vary so much assuming anything about how they
like and dislike being treated by others is likely to be wrong.
One persons "un-unwelcome attention" is another persons "flattering
behaviour"
This is something that really needs to be sorted out at a person to
person level.
Having codes, laws, etc appears to make this harder, rather than easier.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 06:43:17 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.112624.17477@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Nov 92 11:26:24 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
: In article , betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
: |> No, we're required to *arbitrate* the dispute. When I get a complaint
: |> I have four primary options:
: |> 1) Ask the person being complained about to do something
: |> 2) Tell the complainer that they are out of bounds.
: |> 3) Refer the matter to my supervisors (if it has major legal or
: |> policy implications)
: |> 4) set up a meeting between the people involved.
: |>
: |> Which option is a matter for my professional judgement. If the users
: |> aren't satisfied with my response, they in turn have several options,
: |> including going to my boss, the department chair, and perhaps the
: |> appropriate grievance committees.
: |> In addition, there are informal options, such as asking one's
: |> faculty advisor or professor to intercede.
: |> Of course, our doors are always open, even if a user has been a
: |> problem in the past. I can't imagine how it works at sites where
: |> people don't talk to each other
:
: What you say is true of employee or user complaints in general, and
: some of your options may be included in your university's sexual
: harassment policies. However, in the case of complaints of unwelcome
So we are back to sexual herassment being a "special" kind of herassment.
Can someone explain
a) exactly what sexual herassment is in a way which will exclude
any other kinds of herassment
b) why it should be considered "special"
c) do a and b using non-sexist language.
: behavior of a sexual nature (some user displaying sexually oriented
: images on their screen in a public lab, for example), I think your
Please explain how this is aimed at a specific person.
: options are much more limited if you wish to reduce the possibility
: that the university, and perhaps you personally, will be named in a
: sexual harassment lawsuit. The reason that a supervisor would tell an
: employee to cease behavior that is of an unwelcome sexual nature is
: because the supervisor is trying to defend the institution's interest
: in not being sued (and possibly losing the suit) for sexual
: harassment. In your list of options above, in the case of sexual
: harassment, as opposed to other forms of complaint, you definitely do
: not want to exercise option #2. That is probably the fastest way to
: get your institution involved in a formal sexual harassment complaint
So we have decided that the complainant MUST be right, their complaint
MUST be reasonable?
: either with the EEOC or through a lawsuit. Option #4 is only slightly
: less risky, since the reason the person complained to you in the first
: place is because they probably did not feel comfortable confronting the
: person subjecting them to the unwelcome sexual behavior. In your case,
Quite frankly this is the problem of the person making the complaint,
if they refuse to complain to the alleged herasser, then time for
option #2.
What is their excuse?
: since you are a system administrator and most likely will not be the
: supervisor of the user making the unwelcome sexual behavior complaint,
Get this straight first.
A complaint is a COMPLAINT.
By itself it does not mean anything.
: the wisest thing for you to do is to take that user's complaint
: straight to his/her supervisor and/or the university EEO officer or
: whomever is empowered to informally resolve sexual harassment
: complaints for students. Basically, in the case of complaints of
: unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, always do option #3 if you are
Again that magic concept "sex is special"
: not that person's supervisor, because it does have major legal
: implications. Option #1 is a good first step if you are the supervisor
: of one, some, or all of the parties involved.
What do you do if the reaction to #1 is for the user to request an
explanation of the complaint from the complainant?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 12:19:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.162237.9767@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 16:22:37 GMT
In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article , betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>|> I have four primary options:
>|> 2) Tell the complainer that they are out of bounds.
>|>
>
>[...] The reason that a supervisor would tell an
>employee to cease behavior that is of an unwelcome sexual nature is
>because the supervisor is trying to defend the institution's interest
>in not being sued (and possibly losing the suit) for sexual
>harassment. In your list of options above, in the case of sexual
>harassment, as opposed to other forms of complaint, you definitely do
>not want to exercise option #2.
You may be overstating your case. Do you really mean that you will
take sanctions against anyone who is accused of sexual harassment? Regardless
of how frivilous the claims? You can't really mean this unless you also
mean that you will always pass the buck on harassment complaints.
> In your case,
>since you are a system administrator and most likely will not be the
>supervisor of the user making the unwelcome sexual behavior complaint,
>the wisest thing for you to do is to take that user's complaint
>straight to his/her supervisor and/or the university EEO officer or
>whomever is empowered to informally resolve sexual harassment
>complaints for students.
>
Part of the problem of rules about sexual harassmetn is that they are
rules, but they are not rules. I wonder what the word 'informally' means
in the phrase "empowered to informally resolve"? I don't think the phrase
really means anything, but it is often the heart of the sexual harassment
policy. Informality precludes empowerment. Informal mean outside of the
normal rules and regulations.
I think that the informality gives sysadmins more flexability in thier
handleing of these cases. You can of course, pass the buck. Just refuse
to do anything unless the people involved are your assistant sysadmins,
or other direct underlings. But that won't be very helpful.
An informal resolution means that all sides agree that it is a good thing.
If person A is bugging B for a date, and B complains to you (whether or not
you are an appropriate authority); and you tell A that you are getting
complaints, and A realizes they are an asshole, and stops; that is an
informal resolution. If a user is displaying pornography on a screen, and you
get complaints, and you ask them to do it only when others are not present,
and they agree, than that also is an informal resolution.
When no informal resolution is possible, then formal (by the rules)
procedures must be started by the complainant.
I can see two ways a sysadmin can get in trouble here. One is by ignoring
complaints. You may be criticised if you kick all complaints to other
people when you could easily have handled them. The other way is by making
up new rules, or enforcing an informal resolution. Things like "no personal
e-mail".
It seems to me that harassment claims are a pretty difficult subject,
and may be more complicated when computer networks are involved.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 13:15:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 17:16:00 GMT
In article , evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
|> jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
|> : It is policy because it is the law regarding sexual harassment, not
|> : harassment in general. The unwelcome behavior must be of a sexual
|>
|> Which is where most of the problems come from, viz, saying one sort of
|> herassment is worst than another.
I agree. But, in the United States, it is illegal to discriminate on
the basis of sex (gender). My understanding of the origin of the
sexual harassment statute is that some relatively commmon practices in
US companies were, through case law, determined to be sex
discrimination. These included the _quid pro quo_ ("If you have sex with
me I will give you a job, promote you, etc," or conversely, "if you
don't have sex with me, you're fired") activites which are
specifically prohibited by the sexual harassment law. The sexual
harassment law, as I understand it, was designed to clarify this form
of sex discrimination, and to more effectively eliminate it from the
workplace in the US. That is my understanding; an attorney may be
able to provide a confirming or different understanding. This law,
which was originally written for companies, has been extended to
educational institutions, both for the employees and for the
students.
|>
|> : nature. In the case of sexual harassment complaints, the supervisor is
|> : required to tell you that another employee finds your behavior of a
|> : sexual nature directed at them unwelcome and that you should stop it.
|>
|> "Directed at them" will presumably kill off any fuss about
|> workstation screens and netnews.
|> If it was applied in many cases.
Not according to the law. The provision on "hostile environment" does
not specify that the behavior must be "directed at" the complainant.
In fact, there is a specific provision that a third party who
witnesses behavior of a sexual nature, though not directly subjected
to it, and finds that unwelcome can also seek redress under the law.
For example, if two employees in a relationship make public displays of
affection in the workplace (she pats or squeezes his rump in the hall
way, or they embrace passionately by the water cooler), another
employee witnessing this who finds such displays unwelcome may have a
claim under the law. Thus, it is entirely possible that a person
working in a lab, who repeatedly sees unwelcome sexual images on a
workstation screen may have a legitimate complaint. Many of us react
to this scenario with "well, they don't *have* to look at the screen",
but the law says differently.
|>
|> : If the supervisor were smart, he would explain to you the risk that
|> : your behavior is putting the company under and putting you in
|> : particular under. Depending on the nature of the behavior being
|>
|> Surely the first step is to assess the legitimacy of the complaint,
|> and wther the complainent can simply ignore it, as is the case
|> with email from a specific address.
In a sense you are correct. The supervisor should first determine that
the described behavior did take place. The supervisor should not (and
in fact cannot) assess whether the behavior is unwelcome. Under the
law, the determination of "unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature" is
entirely in the eye of the beholder (the complainant). A supervisor
can assess the legitimacy of the complaint, and tell the complainant to
simply ignore it. That supervisor has also just significantly
increased the risk that the company, and perhaps he or she personally,
will be found liable for sexual harassment, should the complainant file
a lawsuit or take the case to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. You may not think that this is reasonable, and it may
allow for some really loony scenarios, but it is the law. The
counterweight to this is that most people are reasonable, and most
people's aim when making a complaint is to put a stop to the unwelcome
behavior, not bankrupt the company. Thus if a company or university
acts on the complaint and puts a stop to the behavior, odds are it will
go no further than that.
|>
|> : complained about, and the company's proactiveness, the supervisor may
|> : also tell you that if you continue the behavior with anyone, you risk
|> : losing your job very quickly. If employees had previously been given
|> : education and information about sexual harassment and some examples of
|> : harassing behavior, and you engaged in that behavior, you might be
|> : reprimanded or lose your job immediately.
|>
|> (Or give such advice and treatment to the complainent, if they are found
|> to be the guilty party)
There are provisions under the law to deal with malicious or false
allegations.
|>
|> Or rather for a claim of such behaviour, by an individual.
If an individual files a formal complaint at any level, it is almost
always followed by an investigation before a determination is made.
It is in no way automatic that complaint = determination of guilt. A
company can investigate a complaint and find it unwarranted. However,
it is not in a system administrator's or supervisor's job description
(or pay level) to make that kind of determination or conduct the
investigation. Thus my suggestion to system administrators is simply
to leave the investigation and resolution of sexual harassment
complaints to the people in the organization who are paid to do it.
|> Or a further extreme, they just file a lawsuit, with only their word
|> this can be just a harmful in the company's view.
Well, yes and no. It is quite unlikely that an entirely
unsubstantiated claim will win a lawsuit. Given the provisions for
false claims, a person making totally unsubstantiated claims runs the
risk of losing their job and consequently probably having a hard time
finding another one. If the company's attitude is that the mere
filing of a lawsuit, regardless of merit, is as harmful as actually
losing a lawsuit, then I would suggest that that company should close
its doors, because there are dozens even hundreds of things that a
company does or doesn't do every day that someone can technically sue
them for.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 13:44:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 17:54:25 GMT
In article , evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
|> So we are back to sexual herassment being a "special" kind of herassment.
Yes.
|> Can someone explain
|> a) exactly what sexual herassment is in a way which will exclude
|> any other kinds of herassment
From the Rice University sexual harassment policy:
Definition
Sexual harassment may involve the behavior of a person of either sex
against a person of the opposite or same sex, and occurs when such
behavior constitutes unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome request for
sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a
sexual nature where:
1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly
a term or condition of an individual's education or employment;
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is
used as the basis for academic or employment decisions affecting the
individual's welfare; or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially
interfering with an individual's welfare, academic or work
performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or
demeaning education or work environment.
A third party may also file a complaint under this policy if the
sexual conduct of others in the educationi or work environment has the
purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the third party's
welfare, academic, or work performance.
|> b) why it should be considered "special"
It is special because the US legal system has determined that it is a
form of sex discrimination, which is illegal in the US.
|> c) do a and b using non-sexist language.
See my answers. The law applies equally to persons of either gender
and does not specify which gender the person subjected to the behavior
must be. In the United States, the overwhelming number of cases are
man against woman. This is not due to the law, but to several
interconnected social conditions, including how men and women are
raised and the distribution of power in our society.
|> : behavior of a sexual nature (some user displaying sexually oriented
|> : images on their screen in a public lab, for example), I think your
|>
|> Please explain how this is aimed at a specific person.
It doesn't have to be. See the hostile environment provisions.
|>
|> : options are much more limited if you wish to reduce the possibility
|> : that the university, and perhaps you personally, will be named in a
|> : sexual harassment lawsuit. The reason that a supervisor would tell an
|> : employee to cease behavior that is of an unwelcome sexual nature is
|> : because the supervisor is trying to defend the institution's interest
|> : in not being sued (and possibly losing the suit) for sexual
|> : harassment. In your list of options above, in the case of sexual
|> : harassment, as opposed to other forms of complaint, you definitely do
|> : not want to exercise option #2. That is probably the fastest way to
|> : get your institution involved in a formal sexual harassment complaint
|>
|> So we have decided that the complainant MUST be right, their complaint
|> MUST be reasonable?
No. I am suggesting that system administrators or supervisors are
elevating the risks to themselves and their companies or universities
by ignoring the complaint or telling the complainant to ignore the
behavior. I am suggesting that system administrators not involve
themselves in determining if a complaint is legitimate or reasonable if
they don't have to.
|>
|> : either with the EEOC or through a lawsuit. Option #4 is only slightly
|> : less risky, since the reason the person complained to you in the first
|> : place is because they probably did not feel comfortable confronting the
|> : person subjecting them to the unwelcome sexual behavior. In your case,
|>
|> Quite frankly this is the problem of the person making the complaint,
|> if they refuse to complain to the alleged herasser, then time for
|> option #2.
|> What is their excuse?
Under the law, they don't need one. Under the law, it is not the
problem of the person making the complaint.
|>
|> : since you are a system administrator and most likely will not be the
|> : supervisor of the user making the unwelcome sexual behavior complaint,
|>
|> Get this straight first.
|> A complaint is a COMPLAINT.
|> By itself it does not mean anything.
Under US law, if the complaint is in regards to unwelcome sexual
behavior, it does mean something. You can disagree and argue all day
about it, but that's the law. I personally don't disagree with you,
but US law does.
|>
|> : the wisest thing for you to do is to take that user's complaint
|> : straight to his/her supervisor and/or the university EEO officer or
|> : whomever is empowered to informally resolve sexual harassment
|> : complaints for students. Basically, in the case of complaints of
|> : unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, always do option #3 if you are
|>
|> Again that magic concept "sex is special"
Unfortunately, in this country, yes.
|>
|> : not that person's supervisor, because it does have major legal
|> : implications. Option #1 is a good first step if you are the supervisor
|> : of one, some, or all of the parties involved.
|>
|> What do you do if the reaction to #1 is for the user to request an
|> explanation of the complaint from the complainant?
Then you can seek clarification from the complainant and relay it to
the user. The law doesn't say that you have to automatically grant the
complainant's case, nor does it say that you have to pay attention to
it. But the mechanisms provided in the law imply that ignoring the
complaint will increase the risk that the company, and possibly you,
will become involved in, and possibly lose, a judgement by the EEOC or
a civil lawsuit. Every company and employee in the US must decide what
level of risk they are willing to tolerate. I am suggesting to
computer system adminstrators that if they do not have to get involved
in this type of complaint, then don't, because the consequences of
doing the wrong thing can be pretty severe. I am in no way suggesting
that system administrators have to like it.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 14:31:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.193146.8833@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 19:31:46 GMT
Sexual harassment is not completely in the eyes of the beholder.
There is a "reasonable person" standard. Here is the U. of Illinois
definition:
Sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual gesture, physical contact,
or statement that a reasonable person would find offensive,
humiliating, or [an] interference with his or her required tasks or
career opportunities at the University.
Even this isn't the whole story, however, since it seems to ban
offensive statements by students that are not directed at a specific
person and that do not interfere with tasks or opportunities. Such a
ban is unconstitutional.
==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/meritor-v-vinson
=================
* Expression -- Harassment -- Meritor v. Vinson
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- Doe v. U of Michigan
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- RAV v. St Paul -- 1
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
By 9-0, the Court said the law as overly broad. By 5-4, the Court said
that the law was also unfairly selective because it only tried to protect
some groups.
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/meritor-v-vinson
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law meritor-v-vinson
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 16:25:49 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.210830.22081@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Nov 92 21:08:30 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
: In article , evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
: |> "Directed at them" will presumably kill off any fuss about
: |> workstation screens and netnews.
: |> If it was applied in many cases.
:
: Not according to the law. The provision on "hostile environment" does
: not specify that the behavior must be "directed at" the complainant.
: In fact, there is a specific provision that a third party who
: witnesses behavior of a sexual nature, though not directly subjected
: to it, and finds that unwelcome can also seek redress under the law.
: For example, if two employees in a relationship make public displays of
: affection in the workplace (she pats or squeezes his rump in the hall
: way, or they embrace passionately by the water cooler), another
: employee witnessing this who finds such displays unwelcome may have a
: claim under the law. Thus, it is entirely possible that a person
: working in a lab, who repeatedly sees unwelcome sexual images on a
: workstation screen may have a legitimate complaint. Many of us react
: to this scenario with "well, they don't *have* to look at the screen",
: but the law says differently.
Common sense and people being able to sit down, talk and work things out
are bad for lawyers.
: |>
: |> : If the supervisor were smart, he would explain to you the risk that
: |> : your behavior is putting the company under and putting you in
: |> : particular under. Depending on the nature of the behavior being
: |>
: |> Surely the first step is to assess the legitimacy of the complaint,
: |> and wther the complainent can simply ignore it, as is the case
: |> with email from a specific address.
:
: In a sense you are correct. The supervisor should first determine that
: the described behavior did take place. The supervisor should not (and
: in fact cannot) assess whether the behavior is unwelcome. Under the
This may well be difficult to prove.
: law, the determination of "unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature" is
: entirely in the eye of the beholder (the complainant). A supervisor
: can assess the legitimacy of the complaint, and tell the complainant to
: simply ignore it. That supervisor has also just significantly
: increased the risk that the company, and perhaps he or she personally,
: will be found liable for sexual harassment, should the complainant file
: a lawsuit or take the case to the Equal Employment Opportunity
: Commission. You may not think that this is reasonable, and it may
But of course the supervisor has no redress, if they are repeatedly
bombarded with complaints which they cannot check out.
: allow for some really loony scenarios, but it is the law. The
: counterweight to this is that most people are reasonable, and most
: people's aim when making a complaint is to put a stop to the unwelcome
If this is the case why allow legal action as a first step rather than a
final step.
: behavior, not bankrupt the company. Thus if a company or university
: acts on the complaint and puts a stop to the behavior, odds are it will
: go no further than that.
:
: |>
: |> : complained about, and the company's proactiveness, the supervisor may
: |> : also tell you that if you continue the behavior with anyone, you risk
: |> : losing your job very quickly. If employees had previously been given
: |> : education and information about sexual harassment and some examples of
: |> : harassing behavior, and you engaged in that behavior, you might be
: |> : reprimanded or lose your job immediately.
: |>
: |> (Or give such advice and treatment to the complainent, if they are found
: |> to be the guilty party)
:
: There are provisions under the law to deal with malicious or false
: allegations.
:
: |>
: |> Or rather for a claim of such behaviour, by an individual.
:
: If an individual files a formal complaint at any level, it is almost
: always followed by an investigation before a determination is made.
: It is in no way automatic that complaint = determination of guilt. A
: company can investigate a complaint and find it unwarranted. However,
: it is not in a system administrator's or supervisor's job description
: (or pay level) to make that kind of determination or conduct the
: investigation. Thus my suggestion to system administrators is simply
: to leave the investigation and resolution of sexual harassment
: complaints to the people in the organization who are paid to do it.
So what you are saying is ignore the complaint.
Of course if people could be bothered to talk to one another when they
had such a problem none of this would be necessary.
Would you explain where trained telepaths can be obtained from (at any
price)
These (highly paid) investigaters would be familier with the following
email, workstations (what you can display on the screen, how much can
be seen when the operator is sitting in front)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 16:55:25 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.212313.22313@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Nov 92 21:23:13 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
:
: |>
: |> : since you are a system administrator and most likely will not be the
: |> : supervisor of the user making the unwelcome sexual behavior complaint,
: |>
: |> Get this straight first.
: |> A complaint is a COMPLAINT.
: |> By itself it does not mean anything.
:
: Under US law, if the complaint is in regards to unwelcome sexual
: behavior, it does mean something. You can disagree and argue all day
: about it, but that's the law. I personally don't disagree with you,
: but US law does.
There are really some quite (clever) tricks you can play with this form
of law.
e.g. Considering a lack of sexual behaviour to be a unwelcome form
of sexual behaviour for ones environment.
(This might be something to try on sites which have banned alt.sex.*
based on content)
:
: Then you can seek clarification from the complainant and relay it to
: the user. The law doesn't say that you have to automatically grant the
: complainant's case, nor does it say that you have to pay attention to
: it. But the mechanisms provided in the law imply that ignoring the
: complaint will increase the risk that the company, and possibly you,
: will become involved in, and possibly lose, a judgement by the EEOC or
: a civil lawsuit. Every company and employee in the US must decide what
: level of risk they are willing to tolerate. I am suggesting to
: computer system adminstrators that if they do not have to get involved
: in this type of complaint, then don't, because the consequences of
: doing the wrong thing can be pretty severe. I am in no way suggesting
: that system administrators have to like it.
Though if you are not carefull then you will find yourself involved
by default. Thus if the complaint winds up on your door mat, (or
in your e-mail) then you are in a no-win situation (potentially)
The only thing you can do is to arrange a contract with each user
specifically agreeing that the sysadmin can take no part other
than as an expert adviser in the case of any complaint for
sexual herassment using their systems being made.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 16:55:38 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.213154.22438@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Nov 92 21:31:54 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: Sexual harassment is not completely in the eyes of the beholder.
: There is a "reasonable person" standard. Here is the U. of Illinois
: definition:
:
: Sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual gesture, physical contact,
: or statement that a reasonable person would find offensive,
: humiliating, or [an] interference with his or her required tasks or
: career opportunities at the University.
:
: Even this isn't the whole story, however, since it seems to ban
: offensive statements by students that are not directed at a specific
: person and that do not interfere with tasks or opportunities. Such a
: ban is unconstitutional.
Would a reasonable person find bans on accessing sexual material which
THEY were interested in accessing to be offensive or humiliating?
What would they think of an enviroment where they could not be sure
when and what way to express their sexuality (even with a consenting
partner), for fear that they might be seen/overheard by a third party
who instead of telling them, will seek legal redress.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 3 19:47:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 23:53:24 GMT
In article , kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> Sexual harassment is not completely in the eyes of the beholder.
|> There is a "reasonable person" standard. Here is the U. of Illinois
|> definition:
|>
|> Sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual gesture, physical contact,
|> or statement that a reasonable person would find offensive,
|> humiliating, or [an] interference with his or her required tasks or
|> career opportunities at the University.
My understanding of the reasonable person standard is that it does not
factor into the complaint initiation under the law (vs under any
particular institution's policy). In other words, a person
subjected to behavior does not need to determine if a reasonable
person would find it offensive or unwelcome before making a complaint.
The reasonable person standard, as I understand it, comes in later,
during the investigation and resolution of a complaint, either
informally or formally within a company, or through the EEOC or a
civil lawsuit. I also understand that the precedent is now to have
two different, gender specific standards. Instead of a gender neutral
"reasonable person", sexual harassment cases use a "reasonable man" or
reasonable woman" standard, depending on the gender of the person
subjected to the behavior.
Sexual harassment is not merely unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature.
It must also meet either the quid pro quo or hostile environment
tests. It seems to me that the quid pro quo test is relatively easy to
determine, whereas it seems that the hostile environment test has the
most gray area, and consequently brings out people's fears the most.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 4 10:57:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov4.080856.24951@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 08:08:56 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
: In article , kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: |> Sexual harassment is not completely in the eyes of the beholder.
: |> There is a "reasonable person" standard. Here is the U. of Illinois
: |> definition:
: |>
: |> Sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual gesture, physical contact,
: |> or statement that a reasonable person would find offensive,
: |> humiliating, or [an] interference with his or her required tasks or
: |> career opportunities at the University.
:
: My understanding of the reasonable person standard is that it does not
: factor into the complaint initiation under the law (vs under any
: particular institution's policy). In other words, a person
: subjected to behavior does not need to determine if a reasonable
: person would find it offensive or unwelcome before making a complaint.
: The reasonable person standard, as I understand it, comes in later,
: during the investigation and resolution of a complaint, either
: informally or formally within a company, or through the EEOC or a
: civil lawsuit. I also understand that the precedent is now to have
: two different, gender specific standards. Instead of a gender neutral
: "reasonable person", sexual harassment cases use a "reasonable man" or
: reasonable woman" standard, depending on the gender of the person
: subjected to the behavior.
And this piece of legislation is about eliminating sexual discrimination?
The above sounds like it has got sexism (and sexual descrimnation) built in.
(There is also the problem of setting the 'reasonable' standards, e.g.
there may be 'womens' groups with an idea of what the 'reasonable woman'
finds accetable, are there directly equivalent 'mens' groups to present
a model for what the 'reasonable man' finds acceptable and unaccetpable?
The latter, if they exist, appear to be lacking in the publicity department.)
:
: Sexual harassment is not merely unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature.
: It must also meet either the quid pro quo or hostile environment
: tests. It seems to me that the quid pro quo test is relatively easy to
: determine, whereas it seems that the hostile environment test has the
: most gray area, and consequently brings out people's fears the most.
I think that the legislation could easily be used to self destruct, one
just has to show that it could be used to promote a 'hostile environment',
as the definition of 'hostile enviroment' is so vague, this should not be
too hard.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 4 13:06:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Due process at state universities
Message-ID: <1992Nov4.125444.10951@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: sbrack@jupiter (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 4 Nov 92 12:54:43 EST
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: kadie@uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: > My guess is every hearing over the last few years at OSU and U. of
: > Illinois has been unfair.
:
: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
:
: >To say that _every_ hearing at OSU is flawed and that _every_ hearing
: >at U. of Illinois is flawed, based on exactly ONE incident from each
: >institution, is more than hasty, it's irresponsible and sloppy.
If one hearing is lacking in due-process protections, then that
calls into question the entire judiciary system. We can't afford
to dismiss these cases as "isolated incidents." No one I've spoken
with has ever heard of a dispute involving ACS being decided in
favor of the student. That outcome, if a fair process is assumed,
is unbelievably improbable. Student's *don't* win. I've seen it
with Residence Life, the registrar's office, and with academic
departments.
:
: Indeed, that is why I prefaced my remarks with "my guess is" and
: detailed the basis of that guess.
:
: [...]
: >The Brack case at OSU was an undergraduate case; it's my
: >understanding that seperate procedures exist for graduate and faculty
: >cases. I can't speak for U. of I., but I wouldn't be surprised if it
: >also has seperate sets of procedures.
: [...]
:
: I wasn't thinking of faculty cases. At U. of Illinois the procedure
: for undergraduates and graduates is the same. None of Ohio State U.'s
: letters to Steven Brack suggest that the procedures for undergraduates
: and graduates differ. Everything comes from the "University Judicial
: Panel" and the "Dean of Student Life".
As a matter of fact, the panel convened against me consisted of
2 undergrads, 2 grads, & I believe 6 faculty.
:
: In any case, the basis of my guess is not just the evidence that the
: procedures of these specific hearing boards are defective. It also is
: based on the theory that all judicial processes are likely to go
: off-track from time-to-time and that student judicial processes don't
: seem to have a way quickly get back on track. In other words, their
: defects in procedure are likely to accumulate quite a while before
: being corrected.
Basically, no one in authority at OSU can see anything wrong with
what happened to me. Ergo, the way my case was handled is, in their
opinon, the right way to handle it. It stands to reason that other
cases would be handled in a like manner.
:
: - Carl
:
: ANNOTATED REFERENCES
:
: (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
:
: =================
: cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
: =================
: The letters from Ohio State University to Steven Brack including his
: letter of dismissial. Also comments on the letters.
:
: =================
: =================
:
: If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
: gopher gopher.eff.org
:
: These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
: method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
: to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
:
: pub/academic/cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
:
: To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
: Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
: name):
:
: send acad-freedom/cases brack@ohio-state.edu
: --
: Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
: =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From what I've seen, I've come to hold the opinion that the most
serious threats to our liberties come not from their sudden denial,
but from a gradual whittling away of their scope & meaning. No one
reacts to the loss of their liberties in small amounts because it
doesn't affect them. They only notice when they've already lost the
battle and have to succumb to the censors & petty bureaucrats.
PS: I'd like to say hi to Bill Miller, Cliff Collins, & Bob Dixon, who
helped make my stay at Ohio State a truly impossible experience. 8)
(Naah, I'm not bitter... *yeah, right!*)
--
Steven S. Brack |"But the greatest of| sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | these is love." | STU0061@uoft01.BITNET
Toledo, OH 43613-1605 \____________________/ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
From caf-talk Caf Nov 4 19:51:08 1992
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov4.235558.7145@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:55:58 GMT
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
> let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
> as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
> 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>
> [NOTE: This case is a bit diffferent; according to _Newsweek_, Brawdy's
> teachers told her that "she'd just have to put up with it". Hopefully,
> prompt reaction to her complaint would have made a difference.]
Indeed. I would not regard this as seemly behavior if _I_ was a junior high
school teenager, male _or_ female. I'd be embarrassed for the victim, but
helpless to correct it, and would expect that it would be the teacher's res-
-ponsibility to call it to the attention of the victimizers that this is not
acceptable behavior.
> "In what other school boards might consider a warning, Brawdy sued her
> district over "emotional distress" and collected $20,000 in an out-
> of-court settlement. Most judgments in these cases have been small,
> but the potential number of plaintiffs is huge."
Good for her.
How would the administration have reacted if it was a female teacher ?
>There we have it; second-grade teasing is now sexual harassment, and schools
>are being found liable for failure to prevent it. What does this mean to
>your typical university computing facility, where a wealth of potentially-
>harassing material is easily available?
You're full of it. I read 'eighth grade'. Where is 'second grade' ?
>[It should also be noted that state universities are included in Title IX
> of the Education Act of 1972. Therefore, these cases could probably serve
> as legal precedent for similar lawsuits at the university level. ]
We'll just have to see, won't we.
There is no doubt that sexual harrassment can be _abused_, just as much as it
can be _used_, and it is the responsibility of all interested parties to see
that such charges aren't made spuriously, since this only weakens the regard
people pay to such charges, in the long run, and destroys the usability of the
laws, as well as acting against the long-term interests of the women's move-
-ment.
Imagine the following scenario :
Radical lesbian gets bitmapped image of high school boy in his
jockey shorts, strapped down and being whipped. She displays it
on her workstation, as a screenlock.
Watch the men object !! ( As well as some women, no doubt. )
-- richard
--
=====
-- richard childers rchilder@us.oracle.com 1 415 506 2411
oracle data center -- unix systems & network administration
Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 4 19:51:10 1992
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov5.001627.8054@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:16:27 GMT
joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>>The following excerpts are from an article in the October 19th issue
>>of _Newsweek_, titled "Must Boys Always be Boys?". While the cases
>>discussed in the article are all based in elementary and high schools,
>>I believe that the actions taken in these situations do not bode well
>>for colleges and universities.
>>
>> "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
>> let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
>> as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
>> 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>Someone who is offended can turn away from a GIF or other stationary
>visual display. It is hard to avoid the audible harrassment of crowds of
>people, which I think is the difference here.
That is only a small part of it.
>It also sounds like sexual harrassment was not the intent of the crowd in
>this case. I suspect that the reason for it was what the crowd felt was a
>nauseating quantity of excess weight on the target of its abuse. That
>doesn't make it right, of course, but it takes it out of the realm of
>_sexual_ harrassment. Kids (and adults) of both sexes are put down if they
>are disgustingly obese.
Seems to me that 'moo' suggests that the human being in question was a cow,
presumably because of the distinguishing characteristics of having excessively
large udders, or, as humans refer to them, breasts. This is a sexually linked
characteristic, and makes it sexual harrassment.
Surely this isn't too hard to distinguish !!
Let's try a simple test. Two of them.
(1) The Golden Rule ... how would you feel if roles were
switched, and you were subjected to this kind of coarse
and, IMHO, degrading, attention ?
(2) The Plastic Rule ... how would you feel if this was your
sister, or mother ? ( I don't have a sister, but, yes, I
do have a mother, and god help the pack of kids who did
this to her, she'd spike them to the wall with her shoe,
one testicle at a time. :-)
-- richard
--
=====
-- richard childers rchilder@us.oracle.com 1 415 506 2411
oracle data center -- unix systems & network administration
Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 4 22:23:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lighthouse!wiley@uunet.UU.NET (Wiley Hodges)
Subject: Steven S. Brack case
Message-ID: <9211050132.AA12499@lighthouse.lighthouse.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 09:32:06 GMT
I'm afraid I've come onto the tail end of this discussion, but I am
left with a couple of outstanding questions. When I retrieved the
files related to Mr. Brack's case from the archive server, I was
surprised to see that there was no formal decision from the
disciplinary board outlining findings of fact and rationale for the
decision amongst those papers.
Was such an opinion issued? Are the documents on the server the only
documents which were ever sent to Mr. Brack?
I ask these questions because I am surprised by what I *didn't* see
in the correspondence. While those documents very clearly outlined
the provisions of OSU policy which were allegedly violated, they
failed to provide much in the way of evidence or record of testimony
to connect specific actions with those alleged violations.
I worked for over three years in the Judicial Programs office at the
University of Maryland at College Park, and I would be very surprised
to see a dismissal backed with such slim documentation, and no real
explicit rationale. My reaction to the OSU disciplinary panel's
decision (based on what I have seen) is that it fails to provide any
account of the mental journey which delivered the board to it's
conclusions.
I apologize if all of this is redundant, but I am anxious to learn
more about what seems to be a very strange case...
--Wiley
wiley@lighthouse.com
From caf-talk Caf Nov 5 09:21:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Due process at state universities
Message-ID: <9211051347.AA25411@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:47:45 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>: kadie@uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>:
>: > My guess is every hearing over the last few years at OSU and U. of
>: > Illinois has been unfair.
>:
>: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>:
>: >To say that _every_ hearing at OSU is flawed and that _every_ hearing
>: >at U. of Illinois is flawed, based on exactly ONE incident from each
>: >institution, is more than hasty, it's irresponsible and sloppy.
>
> If one hearing is lacking in due-process protections, then that
> calls into question the entire judiciary system. We can't afford
> to dismiss these cases as "isolated incidents." No one I've spoken
> with has ever heard of a dispute involving ACS being decided in
> favor of the student. That outcome, if a fair process is assumed,
> is unbelievably improbable. Student's *don't* win. I've seen it
> with Residence Life, the registrar's office, and with academic
> departments.
Steve:
Believe me, I'm not belittling your case at all. I'm not "dismissing"
the case as isolated. What I am saying is that so far no one has been able to
come with eveidence to support Carl's far-reaching claims. Your above
evidence is anecodtal; I would very much like to see some hard numbers. Can
you provide them?
>: In any case, the basis of my guess is not just the evidence that the
>: procedures of these specific hearing boards are defective. It also is
>: based on the theory that all judicial processes are likely to go
>: off-track from time-to-time and that student judicial processes don't
>: seem to have a way quickly get back on track. In other words, their
>: defects in procedure are likely to accumulate quite a while before
>: being corrected.
>
> Basically, no one in authority at OSU can see anything wrong with
> what happened to me. Ergo, the way my case was handled is, in their
> opinon, the right way to handle it. It stands to reason that other
> cases would be handled in a like manner.
Sorry, I can't accept that. Please substantiate your claims. You simply
cannot apply inductive reasoning to this situation at all; the variables
involved are too complex for the induction to hold.
You may think I'm defending OSU and U. of I. I'm not. I'm trying to be
objective. As a matter of fact, it does in fact seem that OSU breached due
process by not providing the specific action paired with the specific rule
that was violated. But to assume that the entire process is flawed based on
one documented case plus some anacdotal evidence still strikes me as jumping
to conclusions.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Defense Resource Management System (DRMS), DITSO-CO-BCC
Defense Information Technology Services Org. AV 850-8256 (614)-692-8256
From caf-talk Caf Nov 5 11:19:18 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov5.111253.29392@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:12:53 GMT
rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) wrote:
>morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>> "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
>> let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
>> as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
>> 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> "In what other school boards might consider a warning, Brawdy sued her
>> district over "emotional distress" and collected $20,000 in an out-
>> of-court settlement. Most judgments in these cases have been small,
>> but the potential number of plaintiffs is huge."
>
>Good for her.
Is it really good for her? I'll discuss that a bit later......
>>There we have it; second-grade teasing is now sexual harassment, and schools
>>are being found liable for failure to prevent it. What does this mean to
>>your typical university computing facility, where a wealth of potentially-
>>harassing material is easily available?
>
>You're full of it. I read 'eighth grade'. Where is 'second grade' ?
I was referring to the 'maturity level', rather than the actual grade level
of the parties involved in this particular incident. However, I believe that
the _Newsweek_ article mentioned other cases involving primary students; if
you'd like to read the article, I can dig up the appropriate issue.....
>>[It should also be noted that state universities are included in Title IX
>> of the Education Act of 1972. Therefore, these cases could probably serve
>> as legal precedent for similar lawsuits at the university level. ]
>
>We'll just have to see, won't we.
I will admit that I posted these excerpts with a certain attitude; I don't
believe that lawsuits are the answer. In the case of the eighth grader, no
mention is made of her parents contacting other parents OR of any efforts by
ANYONE involved to settle the matter outside of the courtroom. I've read
several articles about these cases, and all of them seem to agree that the
matter was handled as "the school isn't doing its job, so let's sue them".
Bleah.
I guess that I look at things a bit differently than these parents. I can
remember having problems with a few classmates, thanks to my size (currently
6'5" and 285 lbs.). When the school's efforts failed, my parents sat
down with the parents of the other kids involved; the matter was dealt with,
and neither the school administration nor the judicial system had to be in-
volved. I think we've all seen similar situations handled in the same man-
ner. I consider such things as part of "parental responsibility".
Today, things are different. As I mentioned earlier, the parents of the
'victimized' child apparently made no effort to deal with the situation
as adults. Apparently, they expected the school to conduct their parenting
for them. I see a few possible means of solving this problem:
- Teacher(s)/administrator(s) talk to the kids
- Parent(s) talk to the kids
- Teacher(s) AND parent(s) talk to the kids
- Take the matter to the School Board
- Take the matter to the State Department of Education
- Sue the school IF none of the above attempts are successful
According to everything I've read, the parents involved went directly to
the last option; essentially, they went outside the system. Which approach
(or approaches) would have been more beneficial to the children? Do we want
to teach our children that lawsuits are the answer? I find it REALLY hard
to believe that a bit of communication among the parents would not have solved
the problem.
>There is no doubt that sexual harrassment can be _abused_, just as much as it
>can be _used_, and it is the responsibility of all interested parties to see
>that such charges aren't made spuriously, since this only weakens the regard
>people pay to such charges, in the long run, and destroys the usability of the
>laws, as well as acting against the long-term interests of the women's move-
>ment.
Agreed! However, harassment is an _individual_ offense; I haven't read of
many cases involving *institutional* sexual harassment. What did suing the
school *really* do to the harassing students? What did they learn? Is it
proper to teach kids that someone else (namely, the school) will pay for
their mistakes/violations?
>Imagine the following scenario :
>
> Radical lesbian gets bitmapped image of high school boy in his
> jockey shorts, strapped down and being whipped. She displays it
> on her workstation, as a screenlock.
>
> Watch the men object !! ( As well as some women, no doubt. )
OK, what would you do if, after asking her to stop displaying the image,
she continued to do so? Would you automatically sue the employer?
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Nov 5 12:04:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:58:04 GMT
In article <1992Nov5.111253.29392@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) wrote:
>>morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>
>>> "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
>>> let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
>>> as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
>>> 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>>>
>>Good for her.
>
>Is it really good for her? I'll discuss that a bit later......
....
>I guess that I look at things a bit differently than these parents. I can
>remember having problems with a few classmates, thanks to my size (currently
>6'5" and 285 lbs.). When the school's efforts failed, my parents sat
>down with the parents of the other kids involved; the matter was dealt with,
>and neither the school administration nor the judicial system had to be in-
>volved. I think we've all seen similar situations handled in the same man-
>ner. I consider such things as part of "parental responsibility".
I feel differently.
I believe that since a student in this country is >required< to attend
school until age 16, the school therefore has a responsibility to protect
students against this kind (or any other kind) of harassment.
I was a victim of several raucous students in my primary and early secondary
school years. The school was NOT interested in suspending or expelling these
students who were the instigators of these offenses. They quite frankly did
not care. The staff and faculty was certainly aware of the problem -- but
they just decided not to act -- despite repeated complaints on my part.
If I had been an adult these "kids" would have been brought up on assault
and battery charges, and in some cases aggrevated battery. Some of them would
have undoubtably done time in jail. But since they were "kids" this didn't
happen -- NOR WERE THEY STOPPED.
If you're going to require kids to attend a school, and force them to attend
a particular school at that (ie: no "choice") then it is incumbent on the
administration and staff of that school to maintain order. Those who offend
against that order should and must be removed.
I applaud the lawsuit and its result. I would look favorably on the
extension of these lawsuits to individual faculty and staff members who are
aware of these offenses, sexual or not, who choose not to act in the defense
of those kids who are being abused at the hands of their schoolmates.
It is high time that some accountability be brought to educators. If they
can't do it internally, then the courts are my next best choice.
--
Karl Denninger Inet: kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc. Voice: (312) 987-5022
From caf-talk Caf Nov 5 15:45:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov5.200831.11226@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:08:31 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
:
: I guess that I look at things a bit differently than these parents. I can
: remember having problems with a few classmates, thanks to my size (currently
: 6'5" and 285 lbs.). When the school's efforts failed, my parents sat
: down with the parents of the other kids involved; the matter was dealt with,
: and neither the school administration nor the judicial system had to be in-
: volved. I think we've all seen similar situations handled in the same man-
: ner. I consider such things as part of "parental responsibility".
:
: Today, things are different. As I mentioned earlier, the parents of the
: 'victimized' child apparently made no effort to deal with the situation
: as adults. Apparently, they expected the school to conduct their parenting
: for them. I see a few possible means of solving this problem:
: - Teacher(s)/administrator(s) talk to the kids
: - Parent(s) talk to the kids
: - Teacher(s) AND parent(s) talk to the kids
: - Take the matter to the School Board
: - Take the matter to the State Department of Education
: - Sue the school IF none of the above attempts are successful
: According to everything I've read, the parents involved went directly to
: the last option; essentially, they went outside the system. Which approach
: (or approaches) would have been more beneficial to the children? Do we want
: to teach our children that lawsuits are the answer? I find it REALLY hard
: to believe that a bit of communication among the parents would not have solved
: the problem.
The problem appears to be that the laws are being implemented (if not written)
in such a way that getting people to sit down and talk to one another is made
more difficult (rather than easier).
But a bit of communication would not have kept the political preasure groups happy.
:
: >There is no doubt that sexual harrassment can be _abused_, just as much as it
: >can be _used_, and it is the responsibility of all interested parties to see
: >that such charges aren't made spuriously, since this only weakens the regard
: >people pay to such charges, in the long run, and destroys the usability of the
: >laws, as well as acting against the long-term interests of the women's move-
: >ment.
:
: Agreed! However, harassment is an _individual_ offense; I haven't read of
: many cases involving *institutional* sexual harassment. What did suing the
: school *really* do to the harassing students? What did they learn? Is it
: proper to teach kids that someone else (namely, the school) will pay for
: their mistakes/violations?
:
: >Imagine the following scenario :
: >
: > Radical lesbian gets bitmapped image of high school boy in his
: > jockey shorts, strapped down and being whipped. She displays it
: > on her workstation, as a screenlock.
: >
: > Watch the men object !! ( As well as some women, no doubt. )
:
: OK, what would you do if, after asking her to stop displaying the image,
: she continued to do so? Would you automatically sue the employer?
One thing, you could sue without having to ask her to do anything,
without even attempting to sort this out using any form of negotiation.
(also you can also sue anyone who attempts to tell you that talking with
either the individual concerned, their supervisor, an indenpendent
negotiator, might be a sensible course of action)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Nov 5 16:35:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <9211052135.AA09761@hibiscus.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:35:25 GMT
Mark Evans (evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk) writes...
> The problem appears to be that the laws are being implemented (if not written)
> in such a way that getting people to sit down and talk to one another is made
> more difficult (rather than easier).
.
.
.
> One thing, you could sue without having to ask her to do anything,
> without even attempting to sort this out using any form of negotiation.
> (also you can also sue anyone who attempts to tell you that talking with
> either the individual concerned, their supervisor, an indenpendent
> negotiator, might be a sensible course of action)
Your postings seem to keep suggesting that all that is needed to take
care of sexual (and implicitly, other harassment) is for the involved
parties to sit down and have a good little chat.
After all, we're all reasonable people here, aren't we?
I don't think anyone here is denying that this is the best solution
WHEN IT WORKS. The question is, what to do when it doesn't. Reasonable
people can still disagree -- I can quite reasonably believe that
my putting a racy GIF on my background window is protected speech; I
also think it's reasonable that my (female) supervisor would find it
bothersome.
If she asked me, being who I am, I would most likely agree to take it down.
But the issue at stake here is, what if I felt sufficiently strongly about
my right to view such images that I refused? If no compromise can be reached,
and if neither party will back down, one side must give in. Sometime, the
question of "who should back down" must ultimately be settled in the courts.
I don't dispute in the least that U.S. society has become far too litigious,
what with marriage contracts and multi-million "negligence" lawsuits, which
I think is your implicit point. But I think your "let's be reasonable"
argument gives short shrift to what I see as a very valid argument regarding
constitutional conflict.
Eric
----
Eric Scheirer - Sun Undergrad Lab Consultant - escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu
Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, and are not intended to
represent views of the Cornell CS Dept, or Cornell Information Technologies --
I don't even work for CIT!
From caf-talk Caf Nov 7 12:14:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: bdixon@wap.oau.org (Bill Dixon)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov06.143255.40060@wap.oau.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 14:32:55 GMT
In article kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.111253.29392@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) wrote:
>>>morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>
>>>> "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
>>>> let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
>>>> as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
>>>> 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>>>>
>
>....
>
>I believe that since a student in this country is >required< to attend
>school until age 16, the school therefore has a responsibility to protect
>students against this kind (or any other kind) of harassment.
>
>....
>
>If you're going to require kids to attend a school, and force them to attend
>a particular school at that (ie: no "choice") then it is incumbent on the
>administration and staff of that school to maintain order. Those who offend
>against that order should and must be removed.
>
At the risk of branching too far away from the original issue (sexual
harassment), I would like to say that you cannot say that a child is
required to attend a particular public school. There are other options
available. For instance, if you believe that attending the public school
in your area is detrimental to the well-being (physical / emotional /
educational) of your child(ren), you can always enroll them in a private
school.
My wife and I have taken this a step further. We teach our children at
home. Our primary reason for home schooling is religious (we feel an
obligation to raise our children in a manner pleasing to God, and feel
that this is the best way to fulfill this obligation), but this thread is
supporting one of our objections to public and private school.
One of the most common questions we are asked about home schooling is
"what about social interaction?". Our standard reply is this: Since our
children are associating more closely with adults (my wife and I) and
other children not their age (their brothers & sisters) than they are with
lots of other kids their own age, they learn to interact with the wide
range of ages they will come in contact with in the "real world". It is
interesting to watch a group of 50 to 100 home schooled kids, compared
with 50 to 100 public schooled kids. The public schooled kids tend to
group themselves in age groups, even if they do not all attend the same
school. The home schoolers form more homogeneous, age-independent groups.
In addition to all of this, however, my children will not have to "run the
gauntlet" at school. Granted, not everyone is in a position to home
school their children, since it does take a commitment to dedicate large
amounts of time and effort into it, but you cannot state categorically
that children are to attend a particular school, whether it be
public or private.
(Shoot, I left my flame-retardant suit at home.)
--
Bill Dixon
bdixon@wap.oau.org
From caf-talk Caf Nov 7 23:16:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:18:19 GMT
This is in reply to kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger), who wrote:
:I was a victim of several raucous students in my primary and early secondary
:school years. The school was NOT interested in suspending or expelling these
:students who were the instigators of these offenses. They quite frankly did
:not care. The staff and faculty was certainly aware of the problem -- but
:they just decided not to act -- despite repeated complaints on my part.
:
:If I had been an adult these "kids" would have been brought up on assault
:and battery charges, and in some cases aggrevated battery. Some of them would
:have undoubtably done time in jail. But since they were "kids" this didn't
:happen -- NOR WERE THEY STOPPED.
:
I might add that right now as it currently stands, the usenet is made
up of a lot of well-educated, often technically-minded people .. just
the kinds of folx whose school experiences resound with the recurring
theme of being square pegs jammed into round holes.
It sure seems as though even 20 short years has done a lot to change
schools -- of course, in those two decades I migrated from small-town
Montana to progressive Evanston.
But I can still remember what my classmates did to me and other misfits,
and with one or two exceptions the countenancing of those actions by
our so-called guardians in the school system.
I'm not sure legal recourse is always the best, and in fact I would
encourage parental involvement, responsibility, and reconciliation
wherever possible. But don't start rattling off kids' lawsuits as
proof positive we are a litigation-crazy society. That misses the
point that the suit is often trying to make -- somebody, please, take
notice and take responsibility.
Aaron
From caf-talk Caf Nov 7 23:44:59 1992
From: martelli@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Nov06.073839.10961@cadlab.sublink.org>
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:38:39 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
...
:It is policy because it is the law regarding sexual harassment, not
:harassment in general. The unwelcome behavior must be of a sexual
:nature. In the case of sexual harassment complaints, the supervisor is
I think you're missing a crucial point. This discussion, we should
recall, started about the alleged "sexual harassment" nature of what a
user chooses to display on hir windowed-screen background. If such
choices, which are so obviously in the nature of free-speech
expressions, are to be labeled "sexual harassment" under the "hostile
environment" doctrine, then the "must be of a sexual nature" clause
which you take as a given (and would make sense!) is NOT guaranteed AT
ALL.
If display of a scantily clad female body is "of a sexual nature",
then why not the display of a scantily clad young male nailed to a
cross and wearing a cross of thorns? Thus, no crucifixes allowed,
I presume. Similarly for other religious depictions, such as naked
Ishtar descending to Hell, Botticelli's Venus, Bosch's Inferno (LOTS
of nudity there!), and so on and so forth.
And why stop at graphics? Isn't wearing a pink T-shirt emblazoned with
"GAY, AND PROUD OF IT!" a similarly "sexual nature" behavior?
Homophobes would certainly feel it unwelcome and hostile. And what if
the message is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE!"? And the pink-shirt example which
you were responding to is NOT as silly as you seem to imagine: a male's
wearing pink, even without the accompanying words, IS taken (in certain
circles) as a signal of out-of-the-closet homosexuality, a "sexual
nature" message not that much different from the gay-liberation one
mentioned above, or from displaying a Mapplethorpe photo on your
office's wall, or on your workstation screen's background...
The threshold, in my humble opinion, was crossed when it was conceded
that a "free expression"-nature act, such as the choice of what to
wear or what to display in one's personal working environment, was
in any way equivalent to "harassing" somebody else sexually, with
unwelcome sexual advances. This way bleakest censorship, dress codes,
and tiranny lay...
--
Email: martelli@cadlab.sublink.org Phone: ++39 (51) 6130360
CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Ronzani 7/29, Casalecchio, Italia Fax: ++39 (51) 6130294
From caf-talk Caf Nov 8 12:09:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9211081708.AA22877@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:08:40 GMT
To: caf-talk@eff.org, lighthouse!wiley@uunet.UU.NET (Wiley Hodges)
Subject: Re: Steven S. Brack case
Cc: ak541@cleveland.freenet.edu,bmiller@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu,rdixon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu,mleugers@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <9211050132.AA12499@lighthouse.lighthouse.com> lighthouse!wiley@uunet.UU.NET (Wiley Hodges) writes:
:
: I'm afraid I've come onto the tail end of this discussion, but I am
: left with a couple of outstanding questions. When I retrieved the
: files related to Mr. Brack's case from the archive server, I was
: surprised to see that there was no formal decision from the
: disciplinary board outlining findings of fact and rationale for the
: decision amongst those papers.
:
There was never a formal decision issued by the panel, only a
finding that I violated said provisions of OSU's rules.
It's kind of like fighting Jello. There's nothing there, so
I can't really argue to refute it. Every blow I strike just
sucks me deeper in.
:
: Was such an opinion issued? Are the documents on the server the only
: documents which were ever sent to Mr. Brack?
I currently have a sheaf of papers over an inch thick relating to my
case. What is on the archive server is what I typed in of the
documents. If someone wants to OCR the documents, I'm willing to
provide copies. I don't have the equipment here. The basic rationale
of the committee's decision seems to have been that Academic COmputing
Services (ACS) was correct, without question, in its findings about
my case. Translating this to he courtroom metaphor, this is the
equivalent of the judge deciding that the prosecution's evidence is
beyond reproach before opening the case. I was not allowed to
call witnesses from ACS, nor to compel any witnesses to testify, no
matter what their relation to the case. (Prof. John Bridge, who
brought the complaint about my posting the word 'fuck' to a
newsgroup, for example.) I was not allowed to put questions to the
witnesses, but rather could only suggest questions to the panel.
I was not allowed to introduce documentary evidence that would have
shown that ACS gave me permission to do everything I did. Matters of
ACS procedures, including the lack of published rules, were likewise
off limits. Despite this, the hearing lasted over 5 hours, one of
the longest they could remember, with my closing argument taking
over 30 minutes, including interruptions by the chair, when he thought
I was saying things that weren't "at issue."
:
: I ask these questions because I am surprised by what I *didn't* see
: in the correspondence. While those documents very clearly outlined
: the provisions of OSU policy which were allegedly violated, they
: failed to provide much in the way of evidence or record of testimony
: to connect specific actions with those alleged violations.
The charge to the panel was strictly limited to their finding what
rules were violated; they never even attempted to challenge any
of the facts ACS presented them.
:
: I worked for over three years in the Judicial Programs office at the
: University of Maryland at College Park, and I would be very surprised
: to see a dismissal backed with such slim documentation, and no real
: explicit rationale. My reaction to the OSU disciplinary panel's
: decision (based on what I have seen) is that it fails to provide any
: account of the mental journey which delivered the board to it's
: conclusions.
:
There was a tape-recorded transcript made of the proceedings, but,
upon my asking, I was old that the actual deliberations of the panel,
when I was held outside the room, were secret, so I guess we'll never
know how the panel arrived at its decision.
:
: I apologize if all of this is redundant, but I am anxious to learn
: more about what seems to be a very strange case...
I'd like to bring suit against Ohio State, but I don't have that kind
of money. I'd like o find out how OSU reached the decision it did,
after the Office of Academic Affairs told ACS that is could find
no violations of academic policy. I'd also like to know whether most
Universities have a rule against violating "other university rules &
policies," and, if so, if they also apply that rule to cover policies
that have never been made available to the person charged. It's
quite difficult, IMO, to avoid violating rules I can only find out
about by violating. I'd like to know how due process can be maintained
without the ability to challenge prosecutorial evidence, without the
power to compel witnesses to appear, or to compel the production of
documents, or for that matter to directly question the witnesses that
did choose to come forward? Where is the due process? Where is the
Justice?
--
Steven S. Brack |"But the greatest of| sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | these is love." | STU0061@uoft01.BITNET
Toledo, OH 43613-1605 \____________________/ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
