Comments on Plot to Kill a Colleague

• Guilty Before Trial?
• Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on June 12, 2006 at 9:20am EDT

• Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? The guy gets suspended without pay because he is arrested? That's a clear violation of his civil rights.

• Nothing is clear
• Posted by Larry on June 12, 2006 at 9:35am EDT

• Craig, It is not a “clear” violation of his civil rights. Why? It didn’t say that he was suspended without pay. It only said he was “suspended.” Suspending people with pay pending a hearing does not create a due process problem. Depending on the nature of his relationship with the university suspension without pay might be a problem. There are not enough facts in the story to render such a judgment, so it is far from “clear.”

• Posted by Michael McCnles on June 12, 2006 at 10:20am EDT

• If the professor was suspended by reason of the sexual harassment charge--as distinct from the quite different charge of conspiracy to commit homicide--then that by itself is the normal and usual response of an institution when confronted with a sexual harassment charge.

  Since all educational institutions who receive federal funding are governed by the Sexual Harassment Guidance of the Office of Civil Rights of the DOE, and since that Guidance requires instantaneous response to all sexual harassment complaints, and because so much is at stake for any institution if it doesn't follow the Guidance, it is normal that any male professor who is so charged in instantly treated as guilty until proven innocent.

  If the charge is hostile environment sexual harassment--as may be the case here--there is no falsification possible, because the only basis of the charge is the fact that the female herself believed herself harassed (the "subjective" criterion in the Guidance). Otherwise, in terms of the "objective" criterion of the charge, the school must use the "reasonable person" or "reasonable woman" criterion, which the Guidance defines in a footnote as the judgment of a third-party as to whether a "reasonable person" in that situation would feel sexually harassed. In short, you're held to be guilty is someone believes that you're guilty.

• Posted by Cherie Dargan , Associate Professor on June 12, 2006 at 1:40pm EDT

• While I appreciate the desire to see that this man's rights are protected, I do not see any such concern for the woman, whose very life was in jeopardy here, if these charges prove to be true--and there seems to be enough evidence for the prosecutor to take them seriously.

  In contrast, I have found that educational institutions drag their feet in taking these types of charges (sexual harrassment) very seriously. We need to do a better job of educating administrators and HR personnel about these matters, the law, and our obligation to protect faculty and students alike from harrassment. I know of a situation where several women have complained about sexually inappropriate material on a male colleague's faculty website, only to be told that it is a matter of academic freedom. We disagree.

• Posted by Larry on June 13, 2006 at 7:40am EDT

• Since my posts seem to get lost, I will make it brief:

  1) Sexual harassment is not a crime, but rather a form of employment discrimination (and, in terms of state law, a "public policy" exception to the employment-at-will doctrine) with only a civil remedy;

  2) Cherie, how in the world can a website be creating a hostile environment. It sounds like you don’t like someone’s ideas, and rather than explain why they are wrong, you scream “harassment.” Why don’t you post the website, because I am anxious to know what ideas you find so bad that you think that others should not learn them.

• I love it
• Posted by Kate on June 13, 2006 at 10:30am EDT

• Larry, it's amazing. 7:40am and you're already attacking a woman for stating she "disagrees" with someone regarding whether a website she believes is hostile to women is considered harassment, or whether it is allowed under academic freedom.

  Interesting that you turned what was a fairly mild comment -- that people who are/feel harassed often get the short end of the stick because administrators drag their feet -- into a hostile attack.

• Posted by Joe Dean on June 13, 2006 at 4:30pm EDT

• There's some pretty strong evidence this guy wanted to have his colleague murdered, and you guys want to defend him? Why?

• short ends of sticks
• Posted by Larry on June 13, 2006 at 11:00pm EDT

• Kate, I don’t see what the hour of my post has to do with it. The woman above claims that a website sexually harassed her, and want the author of it punished for his ideas. Of course I am going to attack that ludicrous notion! Another poster made the erroneous statement that sexual harassment exists only if one “feels” uncomfortable. I had posted Virginia and federal authority that shows that there must be objective manifestations of such harassment in order to sustain a claim. This post never made it. Indeed, unless one is forced to watch pornography on the web, a website is pretty much never going to be a form of sexual harassment. So, in short, this woman should get the short end of the stick.

  Joe, In my country, the USA, people are innocent until proven guilty. Since it is fairly easy to secure a conviction of someone we must never leap to conclusions or adopt the version of events offered by prosecutors or alleged victims. That said, I don't take a position on the criminal prosecution. However, most people here have a strange view of what "Sexual harassment" is.

• Posted by jcl , grad student on June 14, 2006 at 10:45am EDT

• This site has run at least one story about a student accused of attacking his professor over a grade, and I don't recall anyone being concerned that the student was being unfairly presumed guilty, or that the system of grading needs to be reformed.

• Posted by Ted on June 14, 2006 at 6:45pm EDT

• Larry, in the USA, people are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Private employers are not required to grant this presumption of innocence, nor should they be. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone who is almost definitely guilty of conspiring to kill a colleague mustn't be sanctioned in any way by his workplace until a jury hears the case. If, rather than just taped phone calls between Glosser and the hitman, there was a video of Glosser trying to sneak up behing his colleague and stab her, then would it be ok for the College to suspend him? What if she were actually dead and there were eyewitnesses saying he killed her? Should the college still presume him innocent until a court formally determines his guilt?

• Ted is incorrect (see Gilbert v. Homar)
• Posted by Larry on June 18, 2006 at 1:55pm EDT

• The case on point in this case is Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) (no hearing required prior to suspension without pay of tenured police officer arrested and charged with a felony). In this case there must be a hearing, but it may be post-suspension.

  Ted, The employer in this case is not a private employer, but is actually an instrumentality of the state government. Therefore, a lot of your post is irrelevant. While it is tempting to call people who have been arrested “almost certainly guilty” of something based on the words of his accusers (I don’t see how you figure this was a conspiracy), that is not the standard as a constitutional matter. Moreover, there are often “eyewitnesses” to crimes that are simply not credible. They might be lying. They might be mistaken. Moreover, as a constitutional matter sanctioned per se for simply being accused of a crime, but he can be suspended pending a hearing. Whether the hearing is require before or after the deprivation of his position is another question.

  We may well see that this person is innocent. You seem to advocate taking his job away, based solely on the accusation by one person, not even subject to cross-examination or even a chance to present contrary evidence.