Henry said ...
A distinguished microbiologist has ended a six-month standoff with the University of California at Irvine over his refusal to take sexual harassment training. His decision was based on the impact his departure would have on colleagues and graduate students. (He has brought millions of dollars of funding to his department.)Nevertheless, the dispute highlights the passivity with which most people accept veiled Communist-style political education, a form of control bound to increase as Castro, Chavez, Obama and Medvedev declare their common pedigree.
Although he has 30 years of service and tenure, McPherson was suspended from supervisory duties and threatened with loss of his $150,000 salary, proof that this program is a way of asserting political control over senior state employees.
"This is a violation of my principles," he told The Orange County Register. There is no more reason for this than training to recognize car theft or murder or any other crime, he said.
"The state is imposing this based on politics and that can't be allowed...." What's next? he asks. "A loyalty pledge, racial sensitivity training, free speech filtering...I would cheerfully go to jail in protest, as an act of civil disobedience. I am offended however that the university so poorly understands its priorities and confuses its duties that it threatens to interfere with classes and the students I teach, and to whom I have a moral obligation as their professor."
43 comments:
I'm missing something. Exactly how did the professor end the stand-off?
That old gasbag was selling woof-tickets Sub.
An award-winning UC Irvine biologist who set off a national controversy in academia by refusing to take state-mandated sexual harassment prevention training changed his mind and took the class, ending a bitter dispute that lasted for months.
But the dispute was resolved only after researcher Alexander McPherson resigned from UCI to accept a research job in Buffalo, then withdrew the resignation because he says it would have hurt the standing of two of his staff scientists.
McPherson’s decision to take the sexual harassment prevention training was announced by Susan Menning, a UCI official who had previously said the university does not discuss personnel matters.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....,
"The state is imposing this based on politics and that can't be allowed...." What's next? he asks. "A loyalty pledge, racial sensitivity training, free speech filtering...I would cheerfully go to jail in protest, as an act of civil disobedience. I am offended however that the university so poorly understands its priorities and confuses its duties that it threatens to interfere with classes and the students I teach, and to whom I have a moral obligation as their professor."
these old fake, make-believe culture wars are approaching end-game now. the die-hards are either simply going to fade from former positions of prominence, or, they will die hard....,
"these old fake, make-believe culture wars are approaching end-game now. the die-hards are either simply going to fade from former positions of prominence, or, they will die hard....,"
... or
they will join the legions of brain washed "progressives" and social engineered cheerleaders for abortion and homosexual adoption, bitterly resentful of any expression of self-determination contrary to state mandated secular fanaticism.
Sub, the operative point is not the end of a fictional "stand-off".
It's the passive acceptance of radical feminist canon disguised as 'sexual training' and enforced by the government.
If the good professor was threatened with loss of his job because he refused ... "bible training" ... or "heterosexual instruction" ... the university would have been set on fire by pseudo-liberal secular jihadists.
You can stick a fork in it DV, it's done and on its way to extra-crispy.
The great irony is that dyed-in-the-wool "culture-warriors" (and those such as yourself who intemperately provide aid and comfort to these atavisms) have no one to blame for their decline except themselves.
Your relentless "you're either with us or against us" pose wouldn't have worked even if your patrons had demonstrated operational excellence instead of small-minded bigotry and anti-intellectual backwardness.
I'm sorry CNu. I'm having a hard time hearing you. The primal scream of "Bibtards!!!" still echoes through my study, after your last fanatical outburst.
Whose decline are you celebrating?
Whose accent are you cheerleading?
or ... acutally -
What the fuck are you talking about?
Is gUvAmint enforced, mandatory "Sexual Harrassment Training" a good thing or not?
That old buster had issues and needed a good dose of "stop being an asshole" training.
He stopped selling those fake culture-warrior woof-tickets the minute he found out that his grants wouldn't move with him and that Buffalo didn't need him without those grants.
Like most fake-ass "culture-warriors" - he punked when it came down to a question of livelihood or continued bullying of women under his supervision.
I watched The Trials of Ted Haggard the other day, and almost felt sorry for the man...., his wife proved out the only Christian in the entire muddled mess that he got himself into by teaching, preaching, and constructing a community of bibtard hate, and then becoming the object of that deranged bibtardism his damned-self.
Dood is a rainmaker for the university, so they let his crusty, stank-butt stay in the gig. But in order to hedge the institution against legal liability, he had to become certifiably aware of the institutions policies and procedures prohibiting sexual harrassment.
This is actually a VERY simple, VERY standard human resources requirement intended to protect the institution from liability in the event that a responsible member of its staff deviates from policy.
Would that UMKC had acted so responsibly in the case of two of its major offender, rainmaking staff a couple years ago;
UMKC settles sexual harassment suit for $1.1 million
By DAN MARGOLIES
The Kansas City Star
Megan Pinkston-Camp et al. v. UMKC (Warning: Content may offend some readers)
The work environment at a laboratory in UMKC’s psychology department was so sexually charged that at least five women left in recent years after nothing was done about it.
Now the University of Missouri-Kansas City has done something, agreeing to pay $1.1 million to two of those women to settle an explosive lawsuit. According to the suit, the two psychology professors who headed the lab — C. Keith Haddock and Walker S. Carlos Poston II — created a hostile environment by seeking sexual favors, circulating torture videos and pornography, and physically intimidating female lab students and employees.
But even though the university has agreed to pay what may be the largest amount it has ever shelled out in a sexual harassment case, the two men remain in charge of the lab, although it has been moved from UMKC’s psychology department to its medical school.
In fact, not long after the men moved from the psychology department to the medical school in late 2005, they were promoted from associate professors to full professors and given raises — from $76,707 to $101,707 in Poston’s case and from $75,876 to $93,376 in Haddock’s case.
In a written statement to The Kansas City Star, UMKC said that “the charge of sexual harassment is serious and the University of Missouri-Kansas City remains committed to due process in this matter. In our commitment to providing an appropriate environment, we are re-examining all information that was revealed during the litigation to determine if further action is needed.”
"That old buster had issues and needed a good dose of "stop being an asshole" training." CNu
What issues man?
What? He don't suck dick? Blesses his food before he eats? Has a wife? Believes in God? an asshole" training.
"This is actually a VERY simple, VERY standard human resources requirement intended to protect the institution from liability in the event that a responsible member of its staff deviates from policy." CNulan
um hm.
interesting.
From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion
The sham of sex harassment training
It's little more than politically correct indoctrination.
By Alexander McPherson
November 21, 2008
Four years ago, the governor signed Assembly Bill 1825 into law, requiring all California employers with more than 50 people to provide sexual harassment training for each of their employees. The University of California raised no objection and submitted to its authority.
FOR THE RECORD:
Harassment: A Friday Op-Ed article on sexual harassment training said employers with more than 50 employees had to provide the training to each employee. Only supervisors are required to take the training. —
But I didn't. I am a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at UC Irvine, and I have consistently refused, on principle, to participate in the sexual harassment training that the state and my employers seem to think is so important.
For a while, it didn't seem to matter much that I had refused. I (and fellow scofflaws) were periodically notified that we were not in compliance, and we were advised to get with the program like everybody else. Then the university began warning me that my supervisory responsibilities would be taken away if I did not promptly comply.
Last month, the university finally followed through, sending me a letter announcing that my laboratory and the students I oversaw were to be immediately turned over to other university officials and faculty. I continued to refuse to take sexual harassment training, and do so now.
I am not normally confrontational, so I sought to find a means to resolve the conflict. I proposed the following: I would take the training if the university would provide me with a brief, written statement absolving me of any suspicion, guilt or complicity regarding sexual harassment. I wanted any possible stigma removed. "Fulfilling this requirement," said the statement I asked them to approve, "in no way implies, suggests or indicates that the university currently has any reason to believe that Professor McPherson has ever sexually harassed any student or any person under his supervision during his 30-year career with the University of California."
The university, however, declined to provide me with any such statement, which poses the question: Why not? It is a completely innocuous, unobjectionable statement that they should have been willing to write for any faculty member whose record is as free of stain as is my own. The immediate reply of the administration was that if I didn't comply with the law, I would be placed on unpaid leave.
So why am I am being so inflexible on this issue? Why not simply take the training and be done with it? There are several reasons.
First of all, I believe the training is a disgraceful sham. As far as I can tell from my colleagues, it is worthless, a childish piece of theater, an insult to anyone with a respectable IQ, primarily designed to relieve the university of liability in the case of lawsuits. I have not been shown any evidence that this training will discourage a harasser or aid in alerting the faculty to the presence of harassment.
What's more, the state, acting through the university, is trying to coerce and bully me into doing something I find repugnant and offensive. I find it offensive not only because of the insinuations it carries and the potential stigma it implies, but also because I am being required to do it for political reasons. The fact is that there is a vocal political/cultural interest group promoting this silliness as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with.
The imposition of training that has a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The university has already nullified my right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. It has threatened my livelihood and, ultimately, my position at the university. This for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at the University of California 30 years ago, nor when I came to UCI 11 years ago.
Interestingly, I have received many letters of encouragement -- about 25% of them from women. The comments have been rich with words like "demeaning," "oppressive," "politically driven" and "indoctrination." Other phrases included "unctuous twaddle" and "sanctimonious half-wits."
Sexual harassment is a politically charged issue. The people of California have granted no authority to the state to impose narrow political and cultural opinions on individual citizens.
Alexander McPherson is a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at UC Irvine's school of biological sciences.
an insult to anyone with a respectable IQ
primarily designed to relieve the university of liability in the case of lawsuits.
No one with a respectable IQ would object to the university's effort to limit its liabilities - as a matter of course.
McPherson was the one doing the political grandstanding - and at the end of the day - in entirely predictable fashion, he dispensed with his childish "acting-out" and complied with the law and institutional policies and procedures reflecting the same.
"What's more, the state, acting through the university, is trying to coerce and bully me into doing something I find repugnant and offensive. I find it offensive not only because of the insinuations it carries and the potential stigma it implies, but also because I am being required to do it for political reasons." McPherson
Come on CNu.
That's a pretty good point man.
If we can separate church and state - we should be able to separate radical feminism (the presumption that men "harass" women, unless trained not to do so) and state.
What? He don't suck dick?
stop projecting...,
Blesses his food before he eats?
molecular biologists tend to eschew bibtardism...,
Has a wife?
irrelevant. don't conflate your homophobia with his infantile and ultimately specious non-compliance.
Believes in God?
It wasn't bibtard harassment training, now was it?
Come on dood, pick battles that better serve the odds in the hopeless culture war that only you, Bill O'Reilly, and Glen Beck seem intent on continuing to wage...,
You know as well as anyone that God's Son would've told this old fool to stop clowning and go and take the training like a good little perfesser with person-management responsibilities...,
That's a pretty good point man.
Here's a better point brah..., if badass mcpherson wants to be his own man and not comply with any employer's sensible liability limiting standards, then he needs to self-fund his work and stop sucking on the NIH titty.
If we can separate church and state - we should be able to separate radical feminism (the presumption that men "harass" women, unless trained not to do so) and state.
quit clowning magne.
The "training" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not its recipients will act a fool with subordinates. NOTHING.
It has EVERYHING to do with demonstrating that the university has discharged its official regulatory responsibilities for communicating that it does not condone prohibited behaviors, AND, detailing exactly what behaviors are deemed prohibited.
Now unless you have additional handwavy objections to throw up against the wall in hopes that one will stick, my work is done here on this particular thread.
To expect to live in complete harmony with the decisions of the State or your employer is unreasonable.
if he cared so much about his principles, he would have taken the L and quit for good.
He bitched out, plain and simple.
If cats think it's ok to refer to all women as "sweetie," "baby" and "sugar lips" then they have a problem. If they think it's ok to pinch a woman's butt, or threaten to fire her if she won't put out, then they have a problem.
Sure, there are abuses when it comes to sexual harassment claims. Sure, some folks are profiting off the system. But, it's mighty stupid to argue that sexual harassment training is unecessary or unwarranted. Or, like the scientist, useless.
DV, are you seriously arguing that some folks don't need to be taught how to deal with women?
I thought that was one of the core principles and goals of your blog. Teaching cats how to contact with the fairer sex, and then convincing them to make some babies.
Let me find out you done flipped the script.
"DV, are you seriously arguing that some folks don't need to be taught how to deal with women?
I thought that was one of the core principles and goals of your blog. Teaching cats how to contact with the fairer sex, and then convincing them to make some babies.
Let me find out you done flipped the script." Big Man
Big Man.
DV is not "the state".
Yes, I think men in America have been reduced to emasculated little bitches.
But I don't think they should be required by law to attend "Denmark Vesey Training".
I don't pinch women on their asses (even when they want me to), and it has nothing to do with training by the state of California.
I can't believe ya'll cats can't see the hokey doke.
I'm not quite sure what CNu is talking about, but it sounds like more Quixotic Greco-Roman wrestling with imaginary 'Bibtards'.
I can't believe ya'll cats can't see the hokey doke.
kneegrow puh-leeze...,
stop.
friends don't let friends blog drunk.
we lookin straight at mr. hokey doke lookin at hisself in the mirror.
I'm not quite sure what CNu is talking about, but it sounds like more Quixotic Greco-Roman wrestling with imaginary 'Bibtards'.
Now see, it would be one thing if yo boy punkinhaid/polypbooty jones wrote something as disingenuous as this.
But you been around the block enough times to know exactly what I wrote to you on this thread, and furthermore, you also know that it's correct, as is, in its entirety.
Stop playing DV....,
nah, man. Actually I really don't know what the fuck you talking about.
State mandated training?
Get the fuck out of here.
The broke-azzed state of California has mandated the training for its institutional operations as a measure to help avoid legal liabilities.
By making staff with person-management responsibility aware of state policies prohibiting sexual harrassment, and by making said staff aware of what constitutes sexual harrassment, the state has discharged its institutional obligation.
Now if badass mcpherson acks a fool with some subordinate, he's done so with full awareness of the institutional policies and prohibitions and thereby on his own with regard to the potential legal liability in the event that the harrassed person(s) file suit against the university for his misconduct.
now if that isn't straight up, simple and plain enough for you, axe your consiglierinas to break it down for you.
... yo boy punkinhaid/polypbooty jones...
Speaking of polyps... March was Colon Cancer Awareness Month, Craig. I sure hope you took the opportunity to get checked.
Being that you're pushing 50, and you look to be about 50 pounds above your fighting weight, and you greaze on pork... you shouldn't hesitate to have a doctor go up your shitter with a scope.
Side benefit: They might find a few of your old Kangols.
save it uncle chester....,
^ Like you ain't popped a nut fantasizing about those cute lil' volleyball-playing teenage white girls you be feeding "pigs in a blanket"...
Seriously, though, Craig. Colonoscopy. It could save your life.
sounds like you could use a good dose of what Prof. McPherson got...,
as for the rest, while I'm no saint, yet - I have a remarkably good relationship with my symbiota - and function assured of a long life free from the deep chaos of which cancer is symptomatic.
^ From your mouth to God's ear. The thought of you dying young... I just couldn't bear it.
What I don't get is why this professor decided that the mere fact that he was asked to take sexual harassment training counted as an accusation that he was a harasser.
Nor do I understand they the professor felt it necessary to ask the university to provide him with a letter verifying that he had never harassed anyone before he would agree to the training.
It would be one thing if the professor was the only one asked to get training, then I could see his paranoia. But, he's issuing a lot of protests for somebody who hasn't even been accused of anything. He was just asked to take the same training as everyone else to protect the university from further liability, as Nulan has pointed out.
My job does the same thing. They post big placards saying they don't tolerate harassment and the make every employee take a class. That's so that if we decided to get stupid, they can't be blamed. They have done their duty.
This was a lot of uproar about something that appears minor to me.
And I understand the problem with state mandated training for stuff, but each issue has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Just using blanket rules isn't a good look.
rotflmbao...,
I'm quite certain that you and your acid-fast parasites would have quite the little hootenanny...,
On second thought, THEY'RE having a hootenanny in your chitterlings whether you want them to or not.
probing and pruning for the fruiting bodies of deep internal corruption is three days late and three dollars short David.
You'd be better served trying to remove the root cause of that rottenness - instead of identifying so closely and affectionately with its symptoms...,
^ And imagine how much worse off I'd be with financial stress added to my woes, Craig. Can you relate?
Again I say... there's no shame in personal bankruptcy.
But, he's issuing a lot of protests for somebody who hasn't even been accused of anything.
Big Man, in the immortal words of Shakespear's Queen Gertrude;
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Puts me in mind of certain folks who squeal like little pigs caught under a gate at the mere suggestion that their politics carry the taint of "racism"....,
04 11 09
Happy Easter DV. I am a woman and from what I have seen, no woman has commented on this thread. Sexual harrassment is very real and I have suffered from it. It makes sense for businesses to limit their liabilities by having a zero tolerance policy for sexual harrassment. However, sometimes people take it a bit too far and it becomes difficult to tell someone they look nice without wondering if you will be accused of harrassing them.
I have attended these seminars before and DO find the information overwhelmingly lopsided with the males as aggressors and females as victims. From various jobs I've had over the years, I've seen both males and females be sexual aggressors in the workplace.
If people treated each other with respect and practice this mantra:
"Don't eat where you shit", then I am sure sexual harrassment would be a very rare occasion on the job. Indeed.
You'll have to find a new angle of insinuation David - I've returned to the ritual habitual of network security engineering - and am once again shepherding a flock of thousands.
As for yourself, have you found a woman yet that can abide your emanations and for whose attention you don't have to pay on a "per skeet" basis?
That's "don't shit where you eat".
In any setting where one wields authority - parental, managerial, clerical or other - those in authority are responsible for maintaining sexual self-discipline and professional decorum.
... I've returned to the ritual habitual of network security engineering...
Well done, Craig. Well done indeed.
I've got an interesting intellectual property to show for my efforts and nobody here's any worse for the wear.
You on the other hand remain rotten to the core and overtly symptomatic. Do you plan on getting help with your condition David or are you content to just rot from the inside out until you collapse and die like a dog?
Once again we see the coercive integrationists burdening the rest of us with the consequences of their belief system.
The assumption isn't reducing liability, but rather, implying that a "liability" exists as a matter of fact.
This "liability" was purposely "enhanced" by those that believe in forced integration.
And so now the coercive integrationists are doing what all modern liberal education systems attempt to do... Re-educate the "liability."
Craig, you've got our relationship backwards. I don't justify my life to you. You justify your life to me. To wit:
"I've got an interesting intellectual property to show for my efforts and nobody here's any worse for the wear."
To which I reply: Glad to hear it. Your peace of mind and joy in living are evident with every comment you write.
of course David.
My "peace of mind and joy in living" explain your persistent efforts to address me. (and grammatically correctly at that - Comment deleted)
You can no more stifle your compulsion to approach me than you can stifle the urge to smoke another cigarette.
Watch.
Bacteria eating you from the inside out...,
Me feeding your psyche to the moon...,
won't take very much longer now.
^ Happy Easter, Craig.
Post a Comment