Gyroscopic Investing

I had to spend an afternoon this week in a "training" session for the new policy, that apparently was passed in response to the recent highly publicized bullying cases.  I understand the new policy applies to all educational settings, from kindergarten up through universities.

If any of you work in one of these settings, you should be aware of this.  The policy is downright frightening, kind of a mix of Big Brother and Soviet justice.  It states that any behavior that might possibly be construed as sexual harassment, discrimination of a "protected group", or creation of a "hostile environment" has to be reported by anyone who learns of it either directly or indirectly.  The policy applies to any event even remotely connected with the university as long as it involves a student or staff member (including things like off campus parties and email conversations with colleagues from Europe).

This covers a lot of ground.  Let's say you're on the phone in your office alone with the door cracked open, and you either make an insensitive remark or say the F word.  Person #1 hears you, and mentions it to Person #2.  Person #3 nearby happens to overhear the conversation between Persons #1 and #2.  According to the policy, what you said falls under the "hostile environment" clause, and Persons #1, #2, and #3 are all obliged to report the incident - if they don't, they are subject to penalties up to and including job termination.

I understand why hostile environments and sexual harassment and such are a problem, but enforcing the use of hearsay to treat someone like a criminal is equally harassment, in my book.  And it sure means I'm going to be closing my office door and doing whatever I can to work from home.

What policy is this? Who passed it? The federal government?

If it is the Federal Government that's probably no good because I work for the Federal Government in a Army lab and I hear swearing all the time.

Federal government.  It was a "Dear Colleague" letter from the Dept of Education - not a law but functionally the same thing.  Each university/school etc then has to interpret it as they will and make their own policy, which may be stricter than the DOE requires.

Not sure it went to the Army, because that's not an educational institution.  But yes, people lose their tempers and swear here all the time too.  You may think the example I gave was frivolous, but in fact that was very similar to of the examples given by the session directors.  And a faculty member from another university who just joined us and was sitting next to me, told me that this precise scenario occurred at her former place of work, and the person who said the F word was fired.

I'm just a little afraid to go to work on Monday.

Ahh, so it's a regulation, then. Always fun when unelected bureaucrats make law-like pronouncements!

I wonder how this will interact with tenure? Ordinarily tenured profs aren't fireable barring crazy stuff like criminal prosecution. My father has several very uncouth and boorish tenured colleagues, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out for them.

I once had to sit through a course on "micro-inequities" that focused on things like certain subtle body movements and patterns of speech that can supposedly create a hostile work environment.

Nothing overt, of course, just little things that ultra-sensitive people might pick up on...maybe.  The basic message was that everyone continuously engages in behavior that could be construed as harassment and that the only safe thing to do is to say nothing and keep your eyes focused on the ground about 10 feet in front of you.

For the first half hour or so I actually thought the whole thing was a very clever joke.

Courses like that are why the Blackberry was invented.  I can't wait until we get hit with that one.

I thought the best defense against this particular bit of insanity would be for everyone to make a report at least once a day.  It wouldn't be hard to do.

MediumTex wrote:The basic message was that everyone continuously engages in behavior that could be construed as harassment and that the only safe thing to do is to say nothing and keep your eyes focused on the ground about 10 feet in front of you.

That, and not wearing leather chaps.

WiseOne wrote: I thought the best defense against this particular bit of insanity would be for everyone to make a report at least once a day.  It wouldn't be hard to do.

You could file a report on yourself for what you were privately thinking.

WiseOne,
This is your first EEO briefing?  Then get prepared for many more to come...

The USAF is a leader in the area of politically correct thinking.  Over the years I was forced to attend:
- racial sensitivity training
- gender sensitivity training
- sexual harrassment training
- sexual orientation training
- sexual slavery training (As any USAF person can tell you, I am not making this up)
- Religous sensitivity training
- Cultural sensivitity training
- officer-enlisted relationship training

I learned many important ideas in these trainings.  For example, in sexual harrassment training, I learned I should never invite anyone to lunch even as part of a group.  If the invitee perceived my invitation in the wrong way, I am, by their definition, guilty of sexual harrasment.  I can't even invite a fellow male officer, since he could be gay. 

Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling. 

No, just the first one that mandated us to report rumors and gossip as if they were facts, which could then be used against someone we don't even know.  The political correctness straitjacket has a long and glorious history in these parts as well - it's just been advanced another step.

Sounds ridiculous, WiseOne.
Swearing, and I mean this sincerely, is one way to let off steam. I know that there are places and times where/when it is inappropriate, but jeez.

How about casual F-word Fridays?

WiseOne wrote: No, just the first one that mandated us to report rumors and gossip as if they were facts, which could then be used against someone we don't even know.  The political correctness straitjacket has a long and glorious history in these parts as well - it's just been advanced another step.

I guess I assumed (bad assumption on my part) civillian PC training was the same as Military PC training.  For many years in the USAF, all PC trainings stipulated that if I (an officer) did not report any un-pc activity I witnessed or heard about I was "just as guilty as the perpetrator."  The military has already set the precident, so obviously your PC trainers have taken the next step.  You should expect all future PC trainings to include this shared liabilty concept. 

Also think about this:  What do you do when a higher ranking person than you does something wrong.  Report him?  When a colonel once called me a "Polack"  in front of others, do you think I reported him?  Yet by not reporting him, I could get in trouble.