The DOE was reviewing the sexual harassment policies of the University of Montana (why? why not!) and came across policy 406.5.1 (which is not to be confused with policy 406.4.1) and didn’t like what it saw. In a letter written to UM, the DOE said:
This policy provides examples of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature but then states that “[w]hether conduct is sufficiently offensive to constitute sexual harassment is determined from the perspective of an objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation.” Whether conduct is objectively offensive is a factor used to determine if a hostile environment has been created, but it is not the standard to determine whether conduct was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and therefore constitutes “sexual harassment.”
The “standard” is whatever upsets is “malicious harassment.” The DOE further worries that UM doesn’t comprehend “that a single instance of sexual assault can constitute a hostile environment” (emphasis added). All it takes is one football player leering at one cheerleader before a fell “hostile environment” exists.
Apparently the way the SH procedure at UM works is like this. Suppose a male football player notices a female cheerleader and, as she walks by, says “Hey, cutie.” The cheerleader, a Wymyn’s Studies major, will of course consider this a form of violent sexual attack. The seriousness of this charge is really all that is needed to convict the football player, but at the insistence of DOE lawyers, what now has to happen is that the college has to find an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender” and recreate the “same situation”.
In other words, a new girl has to parade in front of the football player to see if her trawling has an effect. To be fair, she also has to wear the cheerleader’s outfit, else the situation cannot be said to have a proper control. If in this reenactment the new short-skirted cutie also feels “objectified”, why then the boy is to be pilloried at once. But what if instead she and the boy end up at Applebees sharing a dessert for two?
In that case, I suggest the original complainant be forced to undergo mandatory and extensive sensitivity training, which includes watching the movie Brian’s Song so that she can understand men have feelings too (but only about sports).
Actually, if we may inject a serious statistical point, just one new cutie would not constitute a sufficient sample. No. There would have to be at least twenty or so recreations before we could be certain if an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation” felt attacked or not.
FIRE is upset with these new almost-regulations. It’s hard to see why. They ought to be embraced (to keep with the naughty metaphors). If it really is “sexual assault” or “harassment” whenever anybody takes offense at whatever does not tickle their fancy, then that is exactly what people should do. Take offense.
Kids with a sense of logic (and humor) ought to, say, file sexual harassment charges over the text which appears in course catalogs. Have you see these lately? They have passages that would make Hugh Hefner blush.
What about all those posters advertising yet another “daring” performance of the Vagina Monologues? (Note to university females: we understand you have vaginas. Congratulations. Now maybe we can go back to Shakespeare?) And what of the hook-up culture that is allowed, countenanced, encouraged by campus Presidents? Harassment! Hostile environment!
File formal complaints against the administrators, gang, not against the professors. It is the Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, Senior Vice Presidents, Vice Presidents, Directors, Assistant Directors, and on and on and on—these creatures regularly outnumber teachers—who are responsible for the offensive material which positively drenches college campuses and which create such horrifying environments.
This isn’t a joke: do this. Immediately press charges against senior administrators, and then press more charges. When they complain, press more charges, and tell them it is your right not to be offended. They cannot but agree.
This all reminds me of this short story, given in its entirety:
At first it might not seem to be apropos, but attend closely and you will see the point at the end.
“IRS, is a beneficent and benevolent bureaucracy which only has our best interests at heart and which is in no way political”
I’m sorry, I was laughing too hard after this to read the rest of the article.
This reminds me of the SNL sketch where Peyton Manning, that week’s guest star, played a character in a sexual-harassment workplace sensitivity education video; the gag, of course, was that because he looked like Peyton Manning, absolutely nothing the character did (up to and including openly, explicitly groping Amy Poehler’s breast) was considered to be sexual “harassment” by any of the female characters, despite a bemused Bill Hader getting pilloried for merely making an off-color joke.
The only thing I can cling to at this point is the hope that by the time my son is old enough to be thinking about this level of education, some major wave of transformation will give him other options.
Perhaps Mr Oldberg of the previous post would like to come and tell our host, FIRE and the rest of them, about the dangers of treating similar terms (sexual harassment/maliciious harassment, sexual harassment/sexual assault) as though they were the same thing.
Rather, they should inform the DOE and UM, among others.
Plus, I believe your comments are an attempt to create a hostile environment.
Isn’t “objectively offensive” an oxymoron? How can there be an offense with no subject to be offended?
Stephen J, I think it was Tom Brady. Funny skit. 🙂
Being persistent in my replies must make the environment more hostile, but I’d love to watch and discuss your process for determining the view of an “objectively reasonable person of the same ” in response to my comments.
But yes, it would be even more entertaining to watch everyone do as you suggest, and report a ton of things possibly defined as harassment but not as malicious harassment or similar. Or more precisely, it would be entertaining to see the adminstrators’ responses.
Eric: You’re right, it was Tom Brady — I am not much of a football person and can barely remember one name from the next. (All I knew for certain was that it wasn’t Tim Tebow.)