Wednesday, March 13, 2019
The Sexual harassment Issue
Sexual torture is an issue that grabbed solely of America when we saying Anita Hill accuse then peremptory Court nominee Cl arence doubting Thomas of harassing her while she worked in his office. It has been stratums since that incident brought question of what constitutes internal agony to the forefront of legal and business attention. During those years thousands of cases have weaved their way finished our court system helping to clear the issue and make it something to a greater extent(prenominal) easily understood.The business world now has more specific guidelines on how to recognize torment and how to handle its various forms. Although there are tranquil plenty of gray areas regarding the issue people are now more informed on how to avoid potential professional personblems and how to deal with them if they do arise. This is completely well and good hardly is the workplace the only surroundings where sexual harassment rears its ugly face? The firmness of purpose to that question is rather simple. no(prenominal) One major area where people are still nerve-wracking work through the issue of harassment is the institute of higher education. some might say that harassment in our colleges and universities whitethorn be handled similarly to they way we handle the problem in the business world and that stand has all in allies in very high places such(prenominal) as the Supreme Court. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education the Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether a aim could be held liable(p) for a 10 year old boy making sexual statements and advances to one of his female secernmates. The allow of this case sent shockwaves through not only elementary schools but also any educational institution receiving federal funding.Justice Sandra twenty-four hour period OConnor delivered the majority opinion for the court which held that the school would be liable for student-on-student sexual harassment if it acted with deliberate ind ifference to known acts of harassment in its programs or activities provided that the harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively debar the victims access to an educational opportunity or reach (Coulter, 1999). Now you ask what does that mean and how would this institute affect higher education.The answer is that the opinion applies the hostile-environment paradigm of sexual harassment, (which arose in reference to the workplace) to any school system financially tendinged by the federal government. The innovation of the hostile-environment concept if applied to higher education moldiness be used with thoroughgoing caution. Approximately 90% of the hostile-environment sexual harassment claims are not found on physical contact but on language (Coulter, 1999). The ship stopal in which language is used in academia differs greatly from the workplace. receivable to the application of the hostile-environment paradigm students and instructors ali ke must speak very guardedly and avoid certain controversial issues that were once openly discussed. The crime syndicateroom find may suffer greatly if what was once looked upon as First Amendment-protected wrangle is now viewed as sexual harassment. Because of OConnors ruling schools must silence students and teachers who might contribute to a hostile learning environment or risk a rather pricey lawsuit (Coulter, 1999).Since its low academia was a place where possibly offensive conversation could be used in order to increase a students understanding and assist in the quest for knowledge although now that quest has strict rules. deep the Education Departments Office for Civil Rights (OCR) clarified how colleges should define sexual harassment and they followed the billet set by Justice OConnor. Applied through a federal law known as Title IX the OCR defined two types of sexual harassment.The first is known as stack pro quo and it occurs when a school employee threatens to ba se an educational decision such as a grade on a students submission to unwelcome sexual behavior. According to the OCRs guidance a school is liable for even one instance of quid pro quo harassment (Chmielewski, 1997). The second type of harassment is the hostile-environment situation described above and their definition mirrors the one delivered by Justice OConnor. What exactly does all of this mean for college professors and their students?Ramdas honey a professor of religion at the University of hello knows all to well the dilemma currently facing our educational institutions. Lamb taught Religion, Politics, and Society a course he designed to meet the students desire for relevance (Thernstrom, 1999). Lamb wanted a course where passionate debate could aid the students to learn and on the first daylight of class he warned the students that every topic would be covered from all viewpoints and if one particular opinion was not represented that he would animate devils advocate an d represent it (Thernstrom, 1999).After his warning three students left the class and Lamb felt confident about the remainder. A student by the name of Michelle Gretzinger was enrolled in the class and had a friendly history with Lamb. She was actively involved in the class but after a divergency with Lamb during a debate over sexual harassment she became retire and refused to participate in class. Gretzinger received a C in the class based on a lack of participation since that was a macro part of the graded criteria. After the semester was over she filed a sexual harassment complaint alleging both of the above types of sexual harassment.Eventually Lamb was readable of the charges and won a countersuit for defamation, although Gretzinger refuses to pay any of the $132,000 ordered by the court. Although clear Lamb is still deeply troubled by the harsh allegations make by Gretzinger. This situation displays just how serious sexual harassment allegations are and just how out of pl ace the current standards are in the acres of higher education. In conclusion sexual harassment cannot be handled in academia as it is in the workplace.Victims need to be protected and no complaint should be taken lightly but the standards must strike the environment they are applied to. Quid pro quo harassment standards can be the same across the board but what constitutes a hostile-environment in the workplace is extremely different than a hostile-environment in academia. By the spirit of college courses the restrictions on free speech must be less blind drunk than they are in the traditional workplace. In order to aid in the learning process students and teachers alike must be permitted to use less-traveled and even sometimes offensive speech.If we continue to apply the same standards to the schoolman world as we do in the business world the hoidenish will suffer. These sometimes-unpopular discussions lead to a better understanding of those whose opinions differ from our o wn. If the menses of discussion is restricted too much some issues may neer be discussed leading to a lack of understanding between women and men. any(prenominal) issue of a somewhat sexual nature may cause taboo in the college classroom. If this happens it could compound the problems we currently have with sexual harassment could be compounded and society as a whole may suffer grave consequences.