Daphne Patai: Feminist Against Sexual Harassment "Vigilantism"

My friend Daphne Patai (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) has penned a splendid book skewering what she calls the "sexual harassment industry." Patai's life journey is from radical feminist of the 1970s to independent-minded feminist of the 21st century. She is a feminist who believes "men are people too." This Wikipedia article is an accurate summary of her career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

Ten years ago, Professor Patai spoke at SIUC campus to a packed University Museum auditorium. The topic was her book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (1998).

In Heterophobia (pp. 29-30), Patai mentions SIUC as representative of the problems with then-current codes:

"In their voluminous writings, the proliferating group of experts in this new field blur major and minor infractions, conflate gross offensiveness with a mere word or gesture that made someone--perhaps only a bystander--"uncomfortable," and even suggest that rape is implicit, if not inherent, in every unwanted touch or look. The connection is made explicit in a typical brochure, distributed at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, which states, 'Sexual harassment can be as subtle as a look or as blatant as rape.' And even lawyers specializing in sexual harassment write without embarrassment about the difficulty of defining the offense. . . ."
[Patai summarizes sexual harassment lawyers' view that "they know it when they see it"]

"The power of the charge of sexual harassment is, at the present moment, enormous. It can unleash formidable institutional forces against an alleged harasser, often with a complete absence of due process. Institutions, which, . . . are required by law to take allegations seriously, go into action as soon as the words 'sexual harassment' are uttered. Southern Illinois's brochure, for example, contains not a single word of warning about filing false charges of this extremely subjective offense. To the contrary, it promotes vigilantism: 'All members of the university community are encouraged to speak out when they see, hear of , or experience incidents of sexual harassment.''"

NOTE: This was a year before the U.S. Supreme Court laid down the "severe, persistent, or pervasive" standard which is lacking in SIU's new (proposed) code.

Dr. Patai has granted me permission to post links to

1) her critical analysis of SIU's code ten years later; and

2) her essay "Women on Top" (a lengthier read; readers strapped for time might scroll down to the last two pages where she describes a typical witchhunt at University of Wisconsin and the forces that sap the accused, even if found innocent, of the will to fight universities that go back to doing what they did before.

For other independent women against sexual harassment codes, see the Independent Women's Forum (http://iwf.org/) and search for "sexual harassment" stories.

Fear Factory: Sexual Harassment "Reform"

Are you an employer who would like to effectively police your workforce? Instill fear that any misstep (real or imagined) could lead to dismissal, removal from the workplace, or mandatory "sensitivity training"?

Don't waste money on some high-priced consultant. Simply go to the web site of your local university and look up "Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures" (SHPP).

Voila! For the price of a brief web search you will find a workplace model that empowers you and self-polices the employees. The model features:

1. Vague definitions of harassment that have nothing to do with sex.

2. Self-policing: The university model turns all employees into informants. If they refuse to inform on a violation of the incomprehensible policy, then others can inform on these refuseniks.

3. You will have no shortage of informants: coworkers (or customers/students) can turn in others for frivolous reasons and never have their identity known to the accused.

4. Even better, trained police ("advisers") will coach accusers and write their complaints for them (apparently, those in college cannot write a simple report of events).

5. Finally, have your lawyers repeat (again and again) "this is required by law" (even if it really isn't).

Sound unreal?

Welcome to Sexual Harassment "Reform" at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. In today's Daily Egyptian, the front page story is "Sexual harassment training begins, questions remain."

Questions indeed!

To bring readers up to speed, I am providing a select list of links on the issue (see below). The "sexual" in harassment is really lipstick on a pig: often the charge has to do with speech that makes someone uncomfortable or allegedly creates a "hostile environment." Like the drag show recently held on campus, the dressing covers what is beneath: in this case, "sexual harassment" is a speech code in drag.

As a recap, here is a Hit Parade of SIU-related links on sexual harassment, free speech, and due process:

This link sums up criticisms of the Code being shoved on faculty, staff and students:

Sexual Harassment Procedures: You Have the Right to ... (mumble mumble)

"The Right to Know Your Accuser" (Leonard Gross)

Professor Gross's entry got the most "hits" of any FreeU entry. It shocks people to know that you have NO right to know your accuser.

Lest any one think that there are only a few victims of harassment codes, they may peruse the full list of FreeU posts:

http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search?q=sexual+harassment

The Sexual Harassment Establishment (S.H.E.) would have you believe that this is a tempest in a teapot. "Mistakes were made" with the John Y. Simon case but that was the exception, S.H.E. says.

Fact check: the guilty-until-innocent abuses have such a long history here that two prior blue-ribbon panels urged real reform.

Phil Howze, one of the courageous voices of reason here at SIUC, said in today's newspaper: "never again" should individuals be deprived of due process and of their dignity based on a rigged system.

An objective observer viewing the "massive resistance" to reform would change the university slogan to "See you next time." When next time comes, it won't be pretty.

Salukis deserve better.

PS: The campus unions were to bargain the procedures but they have been silent as a tomb. I'd love to hear their perspective and what they plan to do. As a Faculty Association member, I'm beginning to wonder if my dues money is well spent. Convince me that it is.

Faculty Senate Goes Halfway on Sexual Harassment

On November 19th, the Daily Egyptian reported on the Faculty Senate's recommended changes to the proposed new sexual harassment code. Kudos to Vice President Mary Lamb and the other senators who demanded changes to the proposed code. Although their input is purely advisory, the Senators sent a strong message that the lack of due process is intolerable. The recommendations deal almost exclusively with due process:

Faculty Senate's Amendments

1. Due process rights shall be afforded to all parties.
2. A Sexual Harassment Review Board shall be formed to work with the compliance officer.
3. A person shall be banned only if he or she poses an immediate threat.
4. Judicial Review board members may be appointed to the Sexual Harassment Panel for cases
involving faculty.
5. The accused shall be notified about the complaint within five working days.
6. The accused and complainant shall have access to a redacted version of the preliminary
investigative report.
7. The accused and complainant shall have the right to appeal and present their own cases.
8. The Sexual Harassment Panel shall submit a report to the chancellor.
9. Records of cases shall be kept under strict confidentiality.
10. The definition of sexual harassment shall be consistent with the Illinois Human Rights Act.

This is progress but the Faculty Senate only went halfway. The overly broad definition of "sexual" harassment still includes everything but the kitchen sink, and still intrudes on the classroom.

The new code expands the definition of "sexual" harassment and adds to the laundry list of possible infractions. This is precisely the kind of "chilling" approach that the Office for Civil Rights (U.S. Department of Education) rebuked several years ago. The code's definition allows accusers to claim "hostile environment" in the face of innocent quips, humor, gestures, and "sexually-explicit" material that is "inappropriate." It extends the code to on and off-campus activities. I went over this ground in my "Open Letter."

If you think it can't happen here, it has happened here and on many other campuses. For example, I am currently reading Todd Tucker's Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan. This book examines a proud moment in anti-Klan activism, yet simply reading that book got one student-employee at Indiana University-Purdue into trouble ("a shop steward told Sampson that reading a book about the KKK was like bringing pornography to work").

I agree 100% with fellow civil libertarians, and the Faculty Senate, on the need for due process. Amen, I say, Amen! But nearly all these spurious allegations, treated ever so seriously, need to be short circuited at the definition stage. An administrator may dismiss such nonsense at the outset but there is no guarantee.

As our Founding Fathers noted when constructing the Constitution, if men (or women) were angels there would be no need for limits on government. That applies to university administrators who have every incentive to respond to each harassment charge that comes their way.

Let's draft a precise definition that deals with actual sexual harassment. That is something we can all agree upon. Anything less is unjust, anything more is cause for mischief.

Separate and Unequal: The Bosses and the People

[Blog entry revised after clarification from the Office of the President. My criticism of the double standards still stands. Note that there are two draft plagiarism documents, as discussed below, and we also have a draft sexual harassment policy under consideration]

When President Glenn Poshard was under attack for plagiarism, I was one of those who supported his presidency, regardless of the plagiarism.

However, the policy draft to protect the "Office of the President" from charges of plagiarism is outrageous. It sets a double standard for the President's Office. What is good for the President ought to be good for the rest of us, including protection from "frivolous or malicious" accusations.

There is a double standard within the draft plagiarism policy (read on to "frivolous or malicious" charges).

More important, there is a double standard between the plagiarism policy and the draft harassment code.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT CODE (draft):

1. Intent does not matter:

"The fact that someone did not intend to sexually harass another individual is not a defense. . . In most cases, it is the characteristics of the behavior and how that behavior is perceived by the victim that determines whether sexual harassment has occurred."

[Harassment is in the eye of the beholder]

2. Context is enough to convict the accused:

The context -- "pattern of conduct," circumstances, a set of instances-- are proof of harassment.

[Circumstantial evidence is proof of guilt]

3. False, but not frivolous reports are punishable: "False reports" made in "bad faith" are subject to punishment. Frivolous or malicious accusations of sexual harassment are not covered.

DRAFT PLAGIARISM CODES (draft):

There is a general policy for "Faculty, Staff, and Students" that takes steps to mix justice with mercy -- the mercy and consideration of intent, context, etc. that is lacking in the draft harassment policy.

A second draft applies to the President's Office. The section on punishing those making "frivolous or malicious" accusations is something that critics (myself included) have called for in the sexual harassment code -- but it appears only to defend the Office of the President. That double standard is what set the Daily Egyptian off in its editorial today.

1. Intent is all that matters

"Intentional Plagiarism: Conscious and deliberate plagiarizing of a source or sources.

Unintentional Plagiarism: Plagiarism that is due to carelessness, a misremembering . . . , a misreading of context . . . , or an inadequate understanding of the citation requirements. . . .

Developmental Plagiarism (in written communication, called patchwriting): An unintended plagiarism that is caused by the plagiarist’s effort to produce work that mimics that of a particular community while she or he is not adequately familiar with the ways of expression of that community. This kind of plagiarism can be seen as the product of an intermediate stage in the plagiarist’s development from being an outsider to being an insider....

[This clause is embarrassing to a doctoral granting institution. If we pass a dissertation that is flawed and in the "developmental" stage, what does that say about SIU? "Developmental" smacks of special education, not fully developed, immature]

An act of plagiarism can either be intentional or unintentional....

2. Context excuses the charge:
In providing an appropriate response to any accusation of plagiarism, then, the following factors should be taken into account.

a. Context: that is, whether the context was institutionalized or competitive....

[Here we enter "what is the meaning of 'is' territory]

b. Intent: that is, whether the plagiarist intended to plagiarize in order to fraudulently advance his or her status within the academy....

[Apparently, it is o.k. if you planned on a career outside the academy? Is plagiarism determined by a person's career choice?]

c. Seriousness of the offense: that is, how substantial and significant the plagiarism was.

d. Engagement with the source material: that is, whether the plagiarist adapted the source material with a recognizable intent to integrate the content honestly within his or her own work or mindlessly adopted the source material without a recognizable intent to integrate it.

[When does the plagiarist get a "do-over?"]

e. Extenuating circumstances: that is, whether there exist circumstances that mitigate punishment for the offense....

". . . [T]hose allegations that are deemed to be of substance shall be handled in accordance with the following procedures:"

"An individual who has a good faith belief that plagiarism may have been committed by a member of the Office of the President shall report the allegation to the Office of the President."

[Must the individual identify themselves? Or will plagiarism committees consider third-party, redacted complaints, as with the sexual harassment code?]

3. Frivolous reports punishable to the full extent of university "law" and civil action (think twice, sucker):

"11. Frivolous or Malicious Charges:

It shall be a violation of this policy to allege, file or raise frivolous or malicious claims against members of the Office of the President or the Chancellors of the SIUC or SIUE campuses. If a violation of this section is committed, the University may initiate any and all appropriate action, including but not limited to disciplinary action against an employee or civil action against a member of the public."

I sincerely wish the President's Office had quit while it was ahead. SIU has enough trouble without "protesting too much" an unpleasant past incident. One can attempt to rewrite history but in cases like this it is better to move on. Let's hope this draft policy remains in the "In" box gathering dust.

POSTSCRIPT:

In tomorrow's DE (5 December 2008), the plagiarism expert who consulted on the Poshard case said that frivolous or malicious accusations ought to be punished. Agreed. So why is that same standard not applied in the case of sexual harassment? To be called a "harasser" is certainly as "weighted" as being accused of plagiarizing!

Sexual Harassment: "Trust us!"

[FYI: There has been a long, heated debate over SIUC's sexual harassment policies and procedures. For a list of blog entries, click here ]

"Report Everything!" "Trust Us!" "Ignore the Procedures!"

Those three phrases sum up a sexual harassment workshop I attended in the College of Liberal Arts. Linda McCabe-Smith (Associate Chancellor of Diversity) and Deborah Nelson (Associate General Counsel) did most of the talking.

Disclosure: I have worked with Linda (on the Chancellor's Affirmative Action Advisory Committee); she is a professional with more common sense than most diversity officials. (Her office has also funded my travel to give presentations on black business history). However, the existing procedures place her (and us) "between a rock and a hard place." She acknowledged that the current procedures are "awful" and things would change under her watch. However, the procedures are still binding. The unions are bargaining and I would urge them to bargain hard for equitable procedures.

In short, we received the following counsel:

*"Report everything" (even if you think it is nothing): the presenters could have spent more time on threshold levels. True, it is up to them to decide cases based on legal standards (thresholds): sexual harassment must be "severe, persistent or pervasive" AND "substantially interferes" with the complainant's ability to work or learn. But the "report everything" mantra may backfire if people do not know (or appreciate) those standards. Individuals may be less likely to report if they think the threshold is so low that trivial things will end up destroying someone's career.

*Don't take the present procedures seriously because they will change (although they are still in effect!). Meanwhile . . .

*Trust us!

While I respect Smith's judgment, we need sensible procedures in place that "balance the rights" of the accuser and the accused. We cannot rely on the judgment of one person. Nelson used the term "balancing rights" throughout but her presentation was laden with "defensive lawyering": we must be firm to protect the University from lawsuits. The law requires policies and procedures but it doesn't require the kind that have caused so much trouble at SIUC.

The current procedures reflect a prosecutorial attitude: 98% of the relevant text is devoted to complainants: how to maintain the privacy (anonymity?) of complainants, advice to supervisors on using prosecutorial "tricks" to entrap the accused, and vague passing references to the rights of the accused (two murky sentences repeated throughout the "Resource Guides"!).

Does the respondent have the right to know the identity of the accuser, the specific charges, etc.? Past experience is rife with complaints by anonymous individuals, redacted reports, and a general policy of "keep the accused in the dark." Nelson stated that she would give "dates, times, names" to the accused. The question I will ask of her (and report back here): when? In a previous presentation before the Faculty Senate, Associate General Counsel Phylecia Cole presented her office's practice on divulging information to the accused. I summarized it in this passage (available in the above link):

Professors were a bit taken aback by the Powerpoint slide indicating that Legal Counsel would hand over documents to the accused IF A COURT ORDERED THEM TO DO SO. Otherwise, everything is secret. Look up "Star Chamber".

In other words, you have the right to know your accuser if you have the resources to sue us. On this point, see the following post by SIU law professor Leonard Gross: "The Right to Know Your Accuser."

There is a big difference between firm statements against sexual harassment and the present procedures which flagrantly ignore any rights of the accused. The 80 pages of procedures, available here offer 7 avenues for complainants to take against respondents. At all levels, those taking complaints should "express sympathy in a neutral manner." That is all to the good. But when it comes to the accused: "be prepared for anger, denials and defensiveness." The guide then offers ways to prosecute the accused in the initial interview:

“Be very specific about any admissions of certain behaviors . . .”

"If applicable, state that disciplinary action may include the employee’s discharge or student’s expulsion from the university” [squeezing respondent]

“Often discussing the behavior with the respondent, without labeling it as harassment will result in him/her admitting to it.” Gotcha! “Then, if appropriate, sexual harassment can be used to label the behavior and you can explain how it violates the University’s policy.” (BEFORE decision is rendered?!)

The charges may be "insufficient" to take action against the accused but fear not: you may find that "the behavior violated another policy, so disciplinary action is warranted.” This passage reminds me of the ever-shifting "extrajudicial reprisals" described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Gulag Archipelago (see his chapters on the perversion of the law).

and on it goes.

As for assembling a defense, the Resource Guides offer the following to the accused:

BEFORE A FINDING: two short sentences:

“Respondent may consult with an adviser to learn his/her available options”

Investigators “will afford the respondent a full opportunity to respond to the allegations.”

That's it! Contrast that with the detailed coaching complainants may receive: complaints may be oral (and thus change). The procedures state: "any oral complaint must later be put in writing.” But they allude to questioning the accused with only an oral complaint in hand. The accused, the procedures state, is likely to be emotional so why present anything in writing that might let him/her escape the prosecutors? Wink, wink, nod, nod.

AFTER THE SENTENCE:

”After a finding has been made and disciplinary action recommended, respondent may file a grievance in accordance with the applicable grievance procedure.”

While the advice and protection given to the complainant takes up many pages, the respondent may file a grievance. Where? Against whom? How?

These questions are for Associate Chancellor Smith and Counselor Nelson:

*Where does the "learning environment" begin and end?

*What information will be given to the accused? Will it be redacted? If so, what information will be redacted and why?

*Does the accused have a right to cross examine the accuser and other witnesses?

*What is the appeal process? The grievance procedure discusses faculty filing against the "administrative officer who made the initial decision"--what does that mean in the context of sexual harassment?

*SIU issues reports to state agencies on the number and type of sexual harassment cases. Are those available to the public at large?

*"False and malicious" complaints: is this the unicorn of sexual harassment cases? This threshold is almost impossible to prove. "False and malicious" is far harder to prove than frivolous -- frivolous is allowed! If this unicorn does appear on campus, the procedures state that “any complaint made falsely and/or maliciously will result in discipline to the complainant.” What is the process?

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC WITH REGARD TO ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS IN THE FINAL PROCEDURES!

This blog is not taking the side of the accused or the accuser. It is trying to "balance rights" (Nelson's phrase). We do not need to ask these questions on behalf of complainants because the procedures already answer them in great detail.

Trust is important. But it is not enough. As Ronald Reagan said: "trust but verify."

I urge the Faculty Senate and the unions to remain vigilant.

Sexual Harassment Procedures: You Have the Right to . . . (mumble mumble)

Everyone knows the famous Miranda decision requiring the accused to be informed of their rights. This decision became one of the keystones of modern liberal due process. If the accused is not informed of their rights, a police state may run rough shod over those alleged to have committed crimes.

Forget Miranda and all that "innocent before guilty" nonsense. Welcome to the wonderful new world of "Sexual Harassment Procedures." In the latest phase of obfuscating the rights of the accused, Southern Illinois University has produced a "Working Draft" entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures." Since this is "comment period," here are my criticisms of the Not-So-New Procedures. For a full history of the events leading up to this point, read the following provocative posts:

http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search/label/sexual%20harassment
The one by law professor Leonard Gross is relevant here.

The criticisms that follow apply not only to Southern Illinois University Carbondale but to many (most?) college campuses. Hence the need for groups like FIRE, NAS, and certain ACLU chapters.

Silver Lining in SIU Procedures Draft:

The SIUC draft streamlines the harassment procedures by channeling everything through an "Associate Chancellor." Got to give them credit for efficiency. This might help reduce the odds of double jeopardy.

Devilish Details:

Let us move on to find the "devil in the details." A rigorous analysis of the draft uncovers

*the "guilty before innocent" principle,
*extreme preemptive action,
*vagueness concerning the "rights of the accused."

The rights of the accuser are spelled out in great detail but when it comes to the accused ("Respondent") we find "not so much" information. If you accept the procedures at Guantanamo Bay, you'll love the approach taken here.

The Procedures state that the accuser:

"should include as much relevant information as possible, such as the name of the alleged victim, the name of the individual who allegedly violated the Policy (hereinafter “Respondent”), and a factual description of the incident(s) (including dates, times, places, and the names of any witnesses)."

This sounds good: full and complete information so that the accused might respond without being left in the dark, as has been documented in past horror cases at SIUC. But will this "full and complete" information be relayed in full to the accused? There are reasons to doubt anything has changed based on the following:

Verbal complaints allowed with no explanation of transcription process:

"Individuals are encouraged to make complaints in writing; however, written complaints are not required. Consistent with the University’s obligation to investigate complaints, and to the extent permitted by law, these records will be kept confidential."

Recommended Revision 1:

The procedures need to clearly state WHO and HOW verbal complaints will be recorded. There are always problems with oral statements, particularly when they can be changed, the person can be "coached," etc. Does any one recall the Duke Lacrosse fiasco and the harm that did to Duke University? I recommend that all verbal complaints be taped (precedent for this with Judicial Affairs) and taken down in writing so that the accused may respond in his/her defense.

Recommended Revision 2:

Make clear that "confidential" does not mean "anonymous" accusations. Later in the document there is talk of redacting and providing only "relevant" information. This places the accused in a terrible position of not knowing WHO is accusing them, who is an alleged witness, etc.

Destroy Reputation, Finish Investigation Later:

"if the Associate Chancellor finds it necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws and/or University policies, he or she . . . may place the Respondent [accused] on temporary paid administrative leave, or otherwise temporarily bar such individual from campus pending the investigation . . . ."

Whoa! These preemptive strikes can devastate a person's reputation, even if the facts are later found to be "insufficient" (you are never declared "innocent," the facts are just "insufficient" to bear the charge!). Why do the Procedures jump to the "nuclear option" without offering milder, sensible alternatives such as a "restraining (or no-contact) order?" One reason, I suspect, is that a restraining order is impossible if the accused is kept in the dark as to WHO is accusing them!

Recommended Revision 1:

Lay out something short of an action that will destroy a person's reputation before there is a finding.

Recommended Revision 2:

Spell out that such drastic action will only be taken if the person constitutes a "clear and present danger" (or similar language).

Confidential Report: what does that mean?:

"Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator(s) shall prepare a confidential report of the findings and any recommendations, to the Associate Chancellor."

Again, does confidential mean that this report will not be made available to the accused? As I recall, this issue came up in the John Y. Simon case and incidents on other campuses.

False Reporting

This is the only mention of "false reporting":

"disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted for violations of the Sexual Harassment Policy (including sexual harassment, retaliation, and false reporting)."

No definition of "false," no recourse for the accused, no consequences for frivolous or false reports, no reasonableness standard. Nothing, nade, zip. Accuse all you want because these procedures give the accused no recourse. The feminist upholders of sexual harassment justice will assert that "false reports" are "rare" and of no concern. Surely, however, they do occur and these procedures, by providing no recourse, only encourage false reporting.

Recommended Revision:

Define false reporting, lay out procedures for the accused to file a countercomplaint.

Rights of the Respondent:

"1. To be informed of the allegations against him or her in a manner that will provide the Respondent an opportunity to respond;" (italics added).

Does "in a manner" mean full and complete disclosure of the complaint, investigation report, testimony of witnesses, etc.? It suggests something less than full disclosure.

Later in the report (p. 8), the draft states the Associate Chancellor will protect "the privacy of the alleged victim and witnesses" (does that mean they will not be revealed to the accused?). Privacy and anonymity are two very different things. The former keeps the process private within the confines of the university, the latter prevents the accused from knowing WHO is accusing them and who is witnessing against them.

On p. 8 there is further discussion of "redacted reports, documents and other materials germane to the investigation." What will be redacted? This needs to be spelled out. If the names of the accuser, witnesses, etc. are redacted (the anonymity issue), then I am totally opposed to this illiberal proposal.

Disclosure to Third Parties:

"Any documents . . . shall not be disclosed to any third parties, unless required by law." Translation: creating a leak-proof university? This became an issue at SIUC when one person allegedly provided information to a lawyer who then took action against the university. Does the above language prevent either party from disclosing documents to legal counsel in preparation for possible legal action? Or is this the ultimate CYA or shield clause for the university to hide its dirty laundry?

The irony is rich: our campus, like so many others, has witnessed criticism of George W. Bush, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay procedures on the grounds that due process is lacking and the government shields itself from scrutiny. Yet here we are with procedures that bear an eerie resemblance to the Bush-era action.

Recommended Revision:

The accuser must provide a complaint (to investigators) with names, dates, and witnesses. Why not simply state that the respondent has "the right to know his/her accuser," and a right to read the charges against him/her in full? We will hear the usual feminist objections that accusers won't be forthcoming if they know the accused will know them and their charges. But this is serious business when a person's life is at stake. Sexual harassment can harm the accuser but it can also have terrible consequences for the accused. Again, the incentives are structured to create an uneven field between the accuser and the accused.

Rights of the Respondent: Privacy

"the privacy of the Respondent will be maintained." But what of those barred from campus? How can we square privacy with an action that clearly marks them with a Scarlet S (for sexual harasser)?

Public Reporting::

"The Associate Chancellor shall, at the end of each fiscal year, provide the number of complaints and the disposition of such complaints to the Chancellor and the offices of the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Illinois Board of Higher Education, pursuant to State statute."

Will this information be public record? If so, where would one find it? If not, why not?

Investigators and Panelists (judges):

There are procedures to make up a pool of investigators and panelists from "constituency groups."

Recommended Revision:

Information personnel (sexual harassment advisers) are available to both sides and should not be eligible to investigate or serve as members of appeals panels. There is a conflict of interest between their role as impartial advisers and judges.

Before signing off, this post is more than "pissing in the wind." It often seems that the Harassment Establishment will engage in rituals nodding to due process while letting the substance dribble away in opaque "procedures." Those who criticize the status quo are labeled (with some accuracy) PITAs (Pains in the Ass).

I take comfort in that I have offered not only criticism but suggested improvements to the draft.

I also take comfort in what George Orwell, one of history's great PITAs, wrote:

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Model Harassment Code: The Winner is . . .

The civil liberties group FIRE rates colleges from "Green Alert" (good record) to "Red Alert" (bad record). Among the "Red Alert" schools, FIRE shames the "Worst Five" by profiling them in a full-page ad of the U.S. News College Rankings issue. Public shaming led one of these schools (Valdosta State) to change its obnoxious policies censoring speech on Facebook (!). Valdosta was taken off Red Alert in recognition of its new found appreciation of civil liberties.

SIU-Carbondale is a "Red Alert" school. Here is the description of "Red Alert" status:

"FIRE adds a college or university to its Red Alert list when an institution acts with severe and ongoing disregard for the fundamental rights of its students or faculty members. While abuses occur on many campuses, Red Alert campuses have policies and/or practices that pose a particularly dangerous threat to basic freedoms; they are the 'worst of the worst' when it comes to liberty on campus."

But SIU-C can change its ways and avoid becoming a U.S. News poster child for suppression of "fundamental rights." One of the ways is to emulate the policies and practices of "Green Alert" schools. After reading the sexual harassment codes of "Green Alert" schools, I award the "best model for SIU-C" prize to . . .

Bucks County Community College! For its policy on sexual harassment, click this link.

(Honorable Mention: University of Pennsylvania)

Under the "Hostile Environment" category--the area resulting in the worst abuses by colleges--Bucks clearly defines what it is and is not: It is a "pattern" of severe, persistent, or pervasive behavior. It is NOT " every act that might be offensive to an individual or a group." Under both categories of sexual harassment, the code offers clear examples.

By contrast, SIU-C's current and proposed code is

*Expansive to the point of absurdity. Moreover, there is no discussion of what behavior is NOT sexual harassment.

*SIU's code does not include the "severe, persistent, or pervasive" legal standard. That standard must be hammered into the code and follow-up training.

*SIU's proposed code bans consensual relationships--a great way to deter potential hires who happen to be single. Where do people meet others for dating and mating? The workplace, of course. I suppose we will be treated next to a pre-dating contract requirement of what a person may or may not do on dates that fall in a gray zone?

*SIU's proposed changes add "sexually-explicit music" and computer images to the code. (Legal Counsel apparently copied this language from the SIUE code). Grab your Nanny Filter, men and women, and make sure you don't join a Facebook or Myspace group that is "sexually-explicit!" If uncertain, check with the bluenoses over at the proposed Office for Compliance.

The Sexual Harassment Working Group, SIU Legal Counsel, and constituency groups ought to "buck up" and read the model code discussed above.

Leonard Gross: The Right to Know Your Accuser

I am a law professor here at SIU but I write strictly on my own behalf and as chairman of the local chapter of the ACLU. I agree with Professor Bean that the proposed sexual harassment code does a very poor job of defining what constitutes various offenses. As a result, there is a risk that people will not have adequate notice of what is an offense.

I also am very concerned that the proposed sexual harassment policy does not accord accused individuals due process rights. Individuals accused of sexual harassment do not have the right to learn the name of their accuser. They do not have the right to cross examine either the accuser or any other witnesses. The right of cross examination is considered fundamental to our system of justice because it is believed that is the best way to learn the truth. Accused individuals do not even have the right to counsel. Furthermore, at the appeals stage, they do not even have an absolute right to present evidence on their own behalf.

This process contrasts sharply with the Judicial Review Board process (I am a JRB member). For grievances that are subject to the JRB, grievants can present evidence, cross examine witnesses and have the assistance of an advocate. The SIU Law School’s Honor Code also provides a better model. We pick a neutral outsider to conduct hearings to determine whether a student has committed an honor code violation. If a student is found to have committed an offense, a sanction is recommended but the final decision as to the appropriate sanction is up to the Dean. Students have the right to counsel, the right to cross examine witnesses and the right to present evidence on their own behalf. Discipline can be imposed only if there is "clear and convincing evidence," unlike the lower standard of "preponderance of the evidence" under the proposed sexual harassment code.

Individuals may rightly feel that the proposed process gives them so little opportunity to be heard fairly that they have no recourse but to resort to filing a lawsuit in federal court as Dr. Meyers has done.

Professor Leonard Gross

New Firing Line: Sexual Harassment as Excuse to Fire Faculty

From East Georgia College: the latest in a string of cases involving abuse of the "sexual harassment" codes. These codes can be used to expel students later found to be innocent (see my previous blog entry) or terminate faculty for speaking out against "sexual harassment" codes that lack due process.

All too often, the accused is guilty-until-proven-innocent. Even then, students and faculty can still be thrown off campus because the administration doesn't feel they will make for a "comfortable environment." Oh, no, we can't have tenure-track faculty criticizing our administrative czars, especially if they wrap the Star Chamber with sweet sounding rhetoric about an "institutional commitment to a harassment-free campus." Offering a different viewpoint thus constitutes harassment itself!

Thank God for the lawyers at FIRE and ACLU local chapters. This is also an issue being fought by the Faculty Association. It is a battle against university lawyers who err on the side of being overprotective of those who might be harassed. This buys them, in their way of thinking, some legal insurance against lawsuits that claim they didn't "do enough." FIRE, ACLU, FA help level the legal battlefield.

Feds Gut Due Process in "Sexual Harassment" Cases

The Office of Civil Rights for the Department of Education has retreated from its firm stance in favor of due process and put forth a new standard for enforcing campus sexual harassment codes based on "the preponderance of evidence" (rather than "clear and convincing" evidence). AAUP and FIRE are concerned that this lower bar deprives faculty, staff and students accused of the due process they need and deserve.

Keep in mind that "sexual harassment" codes extend to a wide range of behavior that is not sexual: namely, creating a "hostile environment." The "hostile environment" category embraces speech and makes this an academic freedom concern, according to both AAUP and FIRE.

How low does this bar go? Pretty darn low. Consider a case from North Dakota where a male student (Caleb Warner) was suspended for three years after a female student accused him of rape. The police later found evidence that this woman had made a false accusation (they never happen, right?) and "lodged criminal charges [against her] . . . for filing a false police report."

So the male student was let back on campus, right? No. Based on the "preponderance of evidence" letter just issued by OCR, North Dakota State still refused to re-consider the case. In the administration's opinion, there was no "substantial new information" (bold for emphasis) and "Warner's three-year suspension 'was not a legal process but an educational one.'"

It's a bad turn of events because in 2003 the same Office of Civil Rights was concerned with the "convict first and fast" attitude of harassment officers in areas of speech. In 2003, the Office of Civil Rights issued a statement clarifying that enforcement did not require campuses to abandon the First Amendment. Today's OCR seems to think its lower standard is just fine, thank you. It will apply not only in cases of alleged rape but also "expressive activities" (speech).

This gutting of due process will leave administrations with the power to blur the difference between rape (a crime that must be proved, except on campuses) and innocent speech, however controversial. In either case, due process is there to prevent Star Chambers from walling themselves off from the rest of the world and declaring their authority Supreme on campus. So now places like North Dakota will stonewall and say: we don't deal with legal processes, only educational ones.

AAUP and FIRE have fought so many of these cases that they have lost their shock value.  Indifference breeds the arrogance of power. Fortunately, faculty/staff/students can organize or speak out. In some cases, they can bring in the AAUP and FIREs of the world and "sue the bastards." Perhaps that is the only thing that Power understands. 

For more, read this FIRE FAQ on the new OCR mandates

HT: Adam Kissel

Smoking Gun: Committee Member Releases Report Silenced by SIU Bosses

Mark Schneider, Professor Emeritus (Sociology) contributes the following:

With regard to reforms of SIUC’s sexual harassment policy proposed by the Office of Legal Counsel:

SIUC constituency groups have been asked to comment on the proposed changes to SIUC’s policy, even though Legal Counsel offers no insight into the problems that both complainants and respondents experienced with the administration of the previous policy. These problems caused constituency groups, in 2006, to propose reforms that Legal Counsel saw fit to ignore in its new proposed policy. Let me admit that reforms to the policy, even were they to remedy the destructiveness of those proposed by Legal Counsel, will be of little effect, since SIUC administrators consistently ignore policies when it suits their interests. But further context might be helpful as the community responds to current proposals by Legal Counsel that lack context.

Fortunately, the SIUC Faculty Association described two cases in which complaints by women faculty against male administrators were ignored by supervisors. I know of another in which a woman faculty member filed a “hostile environment” charge against her chair. Being apprised of it, the Dean of the College, Shirley Clay Scott, immediately commiserated with the chair and indicated that legal advice to fight the complaint would be provided—all this without knowing the specifics of the complaint. [Diversity Chancellor] Seymour Bryson, upon advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, declined to investigate the complaint, the existence of which was, far from being kept “private,” announced in the departmental newsletter (sent to alumni around the world) as part of the Chair’s campaign of harassment against the faculty member, who was named as the complainant. So much for Interim Chancellor Goldman’s interest in “privacy.”

During 2005-06, I served on both University committees that recommended reforms to the policy. When the Sexual Harassment Subcommittee of the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee forwarded proposals for reform to Seymour Bryson, he demanded a rationale for them. What follows is the response that the committee provided him in 2006. While it is very long, it should add significant context necessary to an intelligent discussion of reform proposals.

[MODERATOR: Last year, coauthor Leonard Gross and I posted a link to this report in the Daily Egyptian but the advantage of the Internet is that you can click below for the full report and Schneider's final letter to Diversity Chancellor Seymour Bryson]

Readers mights be particularly interested in the case study that begins with the bracketed [***] inserted by the moderator (p. 2). If "war is the continuation of politics by other means" [von Clausewitz], the warfare here is based on a sexual harassment code twisted for political agendas, or so it would seem. No names, no report--who can tell?]

The Committee report: click on this link.

Schneider's final letter to Diversity Chancellor Bryson: click on this link

Ain't No Bias at Diversity U: The DE gets rolled

Dear editors:

Regarding your editorial, "Perspective is Important":

http://media.www.siude.com/media/storage/paper1096/news/2008/09/23/OurWord/Perspective.Is.Important-3445420.shtml

You write that we should not let "past experiences" or "preconceived biases" inform our "perspective." But the Working Group is stacked with EIGHT-- ALL EIGHT -- members who have a vested interest in the old code (see list below).* They managed it, and made a career out of it (in some cases). If they are not biased, then no one is "biased." (There is nothing wrong with "bias"--an informed person ought to be biased one way or the other. Balance is lacking here).

I read the models SIU Legal Counsel said they relied upon:

U of I: see code
Princeton: see code
NYU: see code

ALL three codes state that the legal standard is "severe, persistent, or pervasive." Very clear language.

Like a good reporter, I carefully reread SIU's new draft policy, which you say provides a "solid foundation" for the future. There is no mention of severe, no persistent, and no pervasive. Those three little words would help guide conduct of everyone on campus, including those who investigate. Believe me, no one has a clue as to the standard unless it is stated by the university, investigators are trained according to the standard, and it is hammered into them that anything below "s, p, or p" is NOT a "hostile environment." As it stands, there is no standard to guide conduct and investigations.

Moreover, the definition of terms like "sexually explicit" is extremely broad ("sexually explicit" is an entirely new category to the code). Wal-Mart censors music, is that the model for SIU? What is a "sexually explicit" song? Image? Object?

You say the draft policy is a "good start" but you made no recommendations for any changes. Be realistic: With a month to go, what could "constituency groups" do to improve the policy before the BOT votes on it in November? "Constituency groups" already offered input through one of the high-level committees of two years ago. None of their major recommendations are reflected in the "draft policy." At this point, "what you see is what you get."

My "preconceived" understanding of this area of law and policy led me and the ACLU president to warn that the code was a "ticking time bomb" before it exploded ("Can the Code"). The ACLU president and I see nothing in the new code to prevent further abuses or, even worse, a "chilling effect" on student and staff behavior. We were also right on the religious freedom case (SIU lost and had to pay $100,000 settlement plus legal expenses). We were right about the DOJ case (SIU signed a consent decree). Our "preconceived bias" has produced a good track record. How is SIU Legal's track record these days?

With all due respect, you gave Legal Counsel far more credibility than they deserve. If they say they based their model on x, y, or z, then read x, y, or z and see if it is true. In this case, they blew smoke all over the Daily Egyptian.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean
President, Illinois Association of Scholars
Professor of History
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
jon.bean AT inbox DOT com

*From the Working Group:

"Committee Membership:
Sexual Harassment Information Advisor representatives
Jill Adams, Associate Professor, School of Law; also teaches and researches sexual harassment policy
Dave Dilalla, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Joan McDermott, Director, Women's Studies
Michelle Hughes Miller, Director, UWPA
Carmen Suarez, Director, Office of Diversity and Equity
Sexual Harassment Scholars
Peggy Stockdale, Professor, Psychology and Faculty Senate President
Cheryl Anderson, Associate Professor, School of Law
Affirmative Action representative
Phyllis Khaaliq, Assistant Equal Opportunity Officer, Affirmative Action Office

The Committee will be facilitated by University Women's Professional Advancement and report its activities to the Associate Chancellor (Diversity).

Open Letter to Board of Trustees, et al.

With yet another civil liberties scandal embroiling SIU, I wrote the following "Open Letter" for members of the Working Group on Sexual Harassment, the Board of Trustees, and President Glenn Poshard. Again, I call for SIU to offer clear, precise, narrow guidelines for determining what is and is not sexual harassment. The following two links offer my Open Letter and the NAS Statement on Sexual Harassment and Academic Freedom:

Open Letter

NAS Statement

Professors with Pitchforks: Faculty "Hot" Over Harassment Code

Professors with pitchforks!

What a difference a month of education and agitation makes when the administration is trying, by all appearances, to rush through a sexual harassment code that is even worse than our old code. Update:

I attended the Faculty Senate meeting, where University Legal Counsel (Phyleccia Cole) presented her office's proposed sexual harassment code. Professor Mary Lamb (English) made a brief, sharp presentation assailing the code. Then the senators started to say how "atrocious" the code was and Lamb asked for a show of hands whether people were as "hot" as the speakers (herself included)--most hands went up (the administrators did not raise their hands. LOL). Lamb posted a questionnaire for professors and everyone else to make their feelings known.

The constituency heads were there and one said his constituency was "very strongly" against the code and they didn't realize how bad it was until now. The senator from the medical school cited the NAS Statement I ran in the Daily Egyptian and used it to criticize the code and propose common-sense guidelines.

Professors were a bit taken aback by the Powerpoint slide indicating that Legal Counsel would hand over documents to the accused IF A COURT ORDERED THEM TO DO SO. Otherwise, everything is secret. Look up "Star Chamber".

The feminist president of the Faculty Senate (Peggy Stockdale) pooh-poohed the "legal" and emphasized the "psychological" -- even a "sexist joke" was on the slippery slope to x, y, z, then sexual assualt. Lordie, bring us back to the 1950s when comic books were a gateway to drugs, deviancy, communism!! Shades of "Reefer Madness!" It starts with Seinfeld jokes and leads to the worst of all sexual crimes.

The president then went on to say that we had to make it "easy and unrisky" for victims to file complaints without having to reveal their identity or even the location of the "crime." The hazier the better.

In the end, President Stockdale had to stew as the senators challenged the assumptions of the code and the abuse of power. Many feared a real "chilling effect." After the show of hands, the Faculty Senate agreed to draft a resolution strongly opposing the code revisions, to be presented at the next meeting.

Professors with pitchforks!

Lawsuit Walking: The Awful, Unlawful, Un-American harassment code

Time has passed since the SIUC administration began to "reform" the university's (unl)awful sexual harassment policies and procedures. Days before a Board of Trustees meeting FIRE lawyer Azhar Majeed, based here in Illinois, contributed a useful guest column in the Daily Egyptian: "SIUC's sexual harassment policies badly need revision."

Those responsible for the current policies and procedures were put in charge of "gathering input" from various constituency groups. The result, if possible, is even worse than what we had before: forget due process and hand all discretionary power over to a single person! God Bless America!

It's sad. SIU has walked into needless lawsuits in the past. From my vantage point, the Board ought to consider whether these "new" procedures leave us a "Lawsuit Walking."

FIRE Fight: Heated Exchange on SIU's Academic Freedom Record

In today's Southern Illinoisan, Chancellor Sam Goldman lashed out at academic watchdog group F.I.R.E. Focusing solely on the speech zone policy, Goldman faulted FIRE for being "a group that does not do their homework whatsoever."

FIRE helped win a major court decision against SIUC on religious freedom (2006), it spoke out against the sexual harassment policy and due process treatment of Cal Meyers (2008) and continues to monitor all of its "Red Alert" institutions, including SIU-C. In a word, FIRE's interest in student and faculty rights is longstanding, whatever you think of their position.

Today, the group responded with a broad critique of SIU's "many existing policies, which violate the First Amendment." FIRE accused the chancellor of "deceit" in failing to announce that SIU had silently changed the RSO Handbook. FIRE also accused the chancellor of misleading the media about the reasons for SIU-C's "Red Alert" status. The FIRE statement comes before a promised second statement by Chancellor Sam Goldman defending SIU against FIRE's "Red Alert" rating of the school.

With the controversial sexual harassment policy due for review soon, FIRE will probably be watching the end result, not expected until February, if media reports are accurate.

For more on FIRE's monitoring of SIUC, click the Traffic Sign widget to the right of this blog, or click here.

See also "Attention, Chancellor Goldman: Here’s Why SIUC is a 'Red Light' School."

"LQC": Lipstick on a pig

Victoria Valle is the assistant vice Chancellor for enrollment management. I know you were thinking that Victoria Valle is a city in Colombia. And you would be right. But OUR Victoria Valle is a bureaucrat at SIUC, or "Southern" as she hopes to "brand" it.

Ms. Valle began feathering her nest down here in Carbondale last year after having been a short term "enrollment manager" at the San Francisco Art Institute. She also spent time at SIUE, Mudelein College in Chicago, Penn State, UC- San Diego, Spelman College in Atlanta, Loyola University - Chicago, Elmhurst College, and Cal State Sacramento. According to our count thats 10 institutions. One thing about the management geniuses at SIUC, when you find someone like Victoria Valle who has made more pit stops than Kyle Busch, then you just gotta get her on your team.

So our peripatetic Ms. Valle has been studying the enrollment issues. She's got big ideas. For instance, she was quoted in the DE saying that she wanted this place to be called "Southern". "We feel that 'SIUC' kind of puts us in a place we don't want to be". And she has another groundbreaking idea: a full colored brochure extolling the wonders of "Southern".

Ms. Valle, this is called putting lipstick on a pig.

The news you may have missed is that the decline in enrollment happened among students FROM Southern Illinois. In other words the people that already know us. Maybe no one told you but here are some more factors in the enrollment decline that your brochures won't help.

(A) 6 acting/itinerate/interim/fired Chancellors since 1999.

(B) A plagiarism scandal that swooped back and forth between SIUC and SIUE before ensnaring the President of SIU, Glenn Poshard. You probably didn't see it, but the Chicago Tribune (which may be read by potential students and their parents) called for the resignation of President Poshard. Luckily we have expert faculty like Peggy Stockdale, a psychologist and Faculty Senate President, who investigated and came up with the felicitous phrase, "inadvertent plagiarism". We understand that Dr. Stockdale is now listed as an expert on sexual harassment and is advising on the new guidelines. No doubt there will some more English language barriers broken. But I
digress...

(C) A bizarre Marxist Dean of the College of Mass Communications, Manjunath Pendakur, who drove off some of the best journalism faculty in the University and replaced them with lunatic deconstructionist/jargonist "theoreticians". Aside from a revolt by alumni who withdrew millions of dollars in donations, the entire network of SIUC journalism was enraged by the actions of this Dean. Which means fewer recommendations to students to attend SIUC.

(D) Most recently there has been the issue of John Simon and Cal Meyers, long time faculty who were driven off campus by the sexual harassment secret police. That has led to the US Grant Association taking its archives elsewhere, many lawsuits, and non-stop, inane comments by the interim Chancellor Sam Goldman. Just today Goldman said that Simon was not fired, even though he received a notice of termination from the university. Goldman's analogy? "You know the line, until the fat lady sings nothing happens". What in God's name goes through Goldman's mind before it passes his lips?.

So you've got a terrific environment to pursue your work at your six figure salary - you can put out all the full colored brochures you want - and the rest of the university will be driving students away. You may have found lifetime employment after all.

LQC

J'accuse! Feds "Discourage" Due Process

Cross-examine witnesses and accuser? That is so 20th century. The Office of Civil Rights (Department of Education) "discourages" it. Colleges have already thrown out old-fashioned notions of civil liberties, as we well know at SIUC, so they are all too happy to presume guilt. The Wall Street Journal has a followup on this topic, which I blogged about yesterday.

(Look for any advice to those accused in our sexual harassment code and compare it to the apparatus offered up to accusers. Or just click on the "sexual harassment" label for this site).

Police State? "Call off the Goons"

Below you will find Professor Mary Lamb's letter to the editor about another on-campus arrest of Cal Meyers for being . . . on campus.

[BACKGROUND: Cal Meyers was ousted for alleged violations of the sexual harassment code, accusations which Meyers never got to see until after he filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit, according to his attorney Rebecca Whittington. Even then, the charges were undated and he claims he still does not know his accuser. See http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9590.html

Certainly, SIU isn't a police state but the police are busy with Professor Meyers, per the orders of "someone above." If Meyers is a "clear and present danger" to the campus community, why haven't workaday Salukis seen a poster warning that he poses a risk? Something along the lines of Public Enemy Number One? A report reading "The suspect is 81, bearing loose dentures and must be escorted off campus IMMEDIATELY. Persons with information shall contact 1-800-BUST-DOC."

I've seen Professor Meyers and chatted with him while he ate lunch in the Student Center, should I report him to the police? I can't imagine they enjoy carrying out this duty. But what is my/our duty? Am I an unwitting accomplice to his crime of being on campus? Inquiring minds need to know.

***************************
Daily Egyptian, 9 October 2008: http://tinyurl.com/4jec2z

Call off the goons

Mary Lamb

Dear Editor:

This letter is directed to interim Chancellor Goldman. Last week Cal Meyers (the retired chemistry professor who was banned from campus for alleged sexual harassment charges, much like the recently deceased John Simon) approached the law school to visit a colleague. He never saw him. Two security police escorted Meyers off campus instead. What a sight that must have been! Two burly guards, each taking an arm of this 81-year-old man, whose weight has dropped to 130 pounds, and who is obviously in poor health.

I am sure you would want such unfortunate events to cease. Who would want to assume moral responsibility for the bad effects on the health of an 81-year-old man? Is this the way you, or anyone at SIUC, believes we should treat an old man, who has given many years of his life (and $2.5 million) to SIUC? And, while we are at it, if you continue to ban him from his chemistry lab, funded by his own $2.5 million, at least give him a substantial portion of his money back! As Chancellor, you are ultimately responsible for what happens on campus. So call off the goons!

Mary Lamb
Professor in the English Department

"Know your Rights": Davis v. Monroe (1999)

In the coming weeks, I will have experts weigh in on a "Know Your Rights" series dealing with student, faculty, and staff issues. Here I simply provide case information for readers.

The application of many civil rights laws ends up contested in court. On the issue of sexual harassment, the U.S. Supreme Court set down a "severe, persistent, or pervasive" standard for determining when behavior rose to the level of violating the law. This standard is missing from SIU's code but is present in most other sexual harassment codes. This doctrine, as expressed in Davis v. Monroe (1999) would go a long way to guide people's actions and reactions to "offensive" speech or behavior.

NOTE: For those who can't bear reading long-winded court opinions, U.S. Supreme Court cases come with a syllabus (brief summary). Read it short or long.

On student conduct codes, see the previously cited opinion of Justice Harry Blackmun.