{"id":40154,"date":"2017-08-16T11:33:55","date_gmt":"2017-08-16T18:33:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/world.edu\/?p=40154"},"modified":"2017-08-16T11:33:55","modified_gmt":"2017-08-16T18:33:55","slug":"sexually-harassing-test-question-504-day-investigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/sexually-harassing-test-question-504-day-investigation\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cSexually harassing\u201d test question = 504 day investigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

I can\u2019t emphasize enough how scary it is to work in higher education. Granted, if you\u2019re an administrator, you\u2019re guaranteed pay raises and advancement no matter how poorly you do your job, but if you\u2019re an academic, you\u2019re on eggshells all the time.<\/p>\n

The reason for this is our systems are loaded down with bureaucrats whose very job is to find faculty guilty of something, and punish them for it. The most trivial accusation by a student causes insanities1<\/sup> of administrators to swoop in and justify their job.<\/p>\n

Allow me to set the scene for the latest. A law professor asks a test question. It\u2019s a multiple choice legal question, and I\u2019ll put a snippet here:<\/p>\n

P owned and member managed \u201cDay Spa & Massage Therapy Company, LLC.\u201d P catered to men and women. Among other services, P offered Brazilian and bikini waxes \u2013 sometimes called \u201cSphynx,\u201d bare waxing, or Hollywood waxing\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

—<\/em>it\u2019s a long and detailed question<\/em><\/a>, as this course is training in advanced skills.<\/em><\/p>\n

Now, I granted the question has a vaguely sexual nature, but this sort of stuff comes up often in lawsuits, so it doesn\u2019t seem overboard. The question offers a choice of 4 answers, after it describes the case in detail, regarding whether there was harassment:<\/p>\n

(A) Yes, because T had established that A was a servant who was placed into A\u2019s position as an Aesthetician, which enabled A to harm to T.<\/em><\/p>\n

(B) No, because T expressly and impliedly consented to A touching T in any manner that was reasonable for A to provide the FB service that T requested.<\/em><\/p>\n

(C) Yes, because P benefited from the revenue paid by T to P for services performed by A.<\/em><\/p>\n

(D) No.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is the kind of stuff legal students should know. Two students complained about the nature of the question. In the olden days, admin would be an actual faculty member, would take 5 minutes to look at the question, and tell the students to calm down and focus on learning.<\/p>\n

But now we have whole fiefdoms whose entire purpose is to search out and investigate in the manner of a witch hunt. The fiefdoms also get to mete out punishments, and even administer those punishments\u2026the gentle reader can guess how often faculty are found guilty in this system.<\/p>\n

First comes the investigation:<\/p>\n

Ouch! Brazilian wax test question nets Howard University professor a 504-day Title IX investigation, sanctions<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

I emphasize: 504 days<\/em> to investigate the students\u2019 complaint, over one test question, a question that takes all of 5 minutes to read. Again, actual faculty would have dismissed the case, because actual faculty care about education and research (i.e., the whole point of higher education), and not so much about not making students uncomfortable.<\/p>\n

But admin cares about justifying their job, so you\u2019d better believe they\u2019ll spend well over a year, blowing a million or more of student loan money on what should have been a trivial investigation. It isn\u2019t just the faculty under investigation who live in fear: we all know that stepping out of line, an invisible line only administrators can see, could just as easily subject any us to a year or more of purgatory.<\/p>\n

So, the committee of witch hunters takes forever to investigate (read?) this one frickin\u2019 question. Well, at least we can take comfort in that, given how much time admin put into it, they\u2019ll come to the right decision and dismiss the complaint, right?<\/p>\n

No way:<\/p>\n

\u2026administrators determined that Robinson would be required to undergo mandatory sensitivity training, prior administrative review of future test questions, and classroom observation. Robinson also received a stern warning that any further \u201cviolations\u201d of the university\u2019s Title IX policies may result in his termination.<\/em><\/p>\n

What a beating! I\u2019ve talked about that \u201csensitivity training\u201d before<\/a>, it\u2019s excruciating. He\u2019ll have a further humiliation of needing administrative approval for his test questions, and classroom observations. The gentle reader needs to know how nerve-wracking it is to have clueless admin sit in your class and tell you how to do your job (I remember spending a decade at a community college, and every \u201cclassroom observation\u201d was given by an utterly unqualified administrator, who nevertheless felt the need to make idiotic suggestions every year).<\/p>\n

You want to bet every other professor on that campus will make sure nothing (arbitrarily) objectionable comes up in their class? How do you teach anything if you can\u2019t push boundaries even a tiny bit?<\/p>\n

Look, I\u2019m no fan of lawyers, but we really do need to train these people to deal with unsavory questions. The chilling effect here is not restricted to just this one school, because out-of-control administrative fiefdoms occupy many schools. It\u2019s why professors are reluctant to teach rape law<\/a>\u2014if one student doesn\u2019t like the topic, even though it\u2019s the subject of the course<\/em>, he could have his career destroyed.<\/p>\n

The institution here does have a free speech policy<\/a>, and promises to grant it to faculty. I\u2019ve never seen administration honor policy when it gets in their way, in fact, I\u2019ve seen them violate policy at every opportunity where doing so is in their favor.<\/p>\n

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education\u00a0<\/em>wrote to<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0Howard on June 16 demanding that Robinson\u2019s sanctions be removed. Howard did not respond by FIRE\u2019s June 30 deadline.<\/em><\/p>\n

–of course they didn\u2019t\u2026why should they care at all?<\/em><\/p>\n

The professor can certainly try to fight for what should be an obvious right to ask questions but I know what will happen if he tries to appeal the ruling of the insanity\u2026they\u2019re reject it. This just isn\u2019t a system designed for fairness, it\u2019s designed to support and reinforce administrative power in every way.<\/p>\n

The decision for professor Robinson here is if he wants to undergo the punishments, or take his own employer to court, which, naturally, could take a year or more to resolve.<\/p>\n

Focusing on how this matters to the typical reader: why would you want your kid to pay $100,000 to get anything at all out of such an insane system?<\/p>\n

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com<\/a><\/p>\n