Search News


Browse Archives

News

Prof Risks Pay to Avoid Harassment Training

November 7, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Alexander McPherson is facing a deadline next week. The tenured professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at the University of California at Irvine has until November 12 to complete a training program on sexual harassment. He's never been accused of sexual harassment, but he is among the 3,522 faculty members and other employees at the university who have supervisory responsibilities and are therefore covered by a 2004 state law mandating the training.

Already, McPherson has been stripped of the supervision of workers in his lab -- a program that has brought in millions in federal research grants. And he's been warned by deans and others that if he doesn't change his mind in a week, the university will stop paying him his salary of $148,000 a year. McPherson won't budge.

"This is a violation of my principles," he said. "I am offended that the university comes to me and says you need to take sexual harassment training. There is no more reason that I need to take sex harassment training than I need to take training on avoiding grand theft auto or murder or any other crime. The state is imposing this based on politics and that can't be allowed."

He added that requiring people to take harassment training suggests that they may be responsible in some way for harassing people. If the university or the state were to require specific departments with a demonstrated problem with harassment to go through training, that would be different, McPherson said.

Instead of going through the training, he is now trying to draw attention to the requirement and why he believes it is unjust. He started by talking to his local newspaper, The Orange County Register, and releasing to it various e-mail messages to and from university officials. And he agreed to discuss the situation with Inside Higher Ed Thursday. He noted that he provided the Register with a written release authorizing the university to share his personnel file directly with the reporter to verify that he'd never been accused of harassment, but that the university declined to turn over the files for review.

The training can take place in person or online, and McPherson said he has been told by colleagues that they complied with the online training by logging into a Web page, leaving it there for three hours, and then giving random answers to questions. But McPherson said his principles do not allow him to proceed in that way.

In one e-mail exchange with a dean, McPherson writes of the requirement: "I have never heard the university advance a reasonable and convincing explanation. I don't seem to be getting one now either. The answer appears to be simply, 'Look, this is the law -- now do it or else.' The fact that this is being required of everyone makes it no less onerous, as in the end, it is being required of each of us as an individual. I ask what is next? A loyalty pledge, racial sensitivity training, free speech filtering.... I would cheerfully go to jail in protest, as an act of civil disobedience. I am offended, however, that the university so poorly understands its priorities and confuses its duties that it threatens to interfere with the classes and with the students I teach, and to whom I have a moral obligation as their professor."

McPherson said he has already been told that he doesn't have full authority over his classes and that others will make final decisions about students in the courses he is teaching. It is not clear, he said, what the university intends to do about his federal grants if he is suspended.

The e-mail in which he volunteered to go to jail resulted in a response indicating that "the next step is not jail, but leave without pay."

Cathy Lawhon, a spokeswoman for Irvine, said she could not comment on McPherson's dispute with the university and that she had not even read relevant files about it. But she said that 97 percent of those covered by the law have gone through the required harassment training. Further, she said that she believed McPherson was the only person actively resisting the program.

She did say that the training serves a purpose even if someone isn't engaged in inappropriate behavior. "If as a supervisor, something is happening in the work place, something I saw among people I supervised, I would be trained to recognize it."

McPherson said that he certainly agrees that there is sexual harassment in the world, and that it's illegal and wrong, but he disputed the idea that professors need formal training. He noted that the university regularly distributes information about the topic. "The university has done a magnificent job of keeping me very well informed of all the rules and regulations regarding that particular problem," he said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Prof Risks Pay to Avoid Harassment Training

  • Posted by Random Professor on November 7, 2008 at 5:10am EST
  • As a grad student at Wisconsin 20 years ago I was also forced to undergo this sort of training - 2 hours on race, 2 hours on gender. I sat at the back with the rest of the science types and we worked on problem sets. Most of the sessions were designed to justify the jobs of the diversity administrators - I remember one guy who read to us, verbatim, from the federal regulations, for what seemed like 12 hours. Then we divided into groups for sunday school like role playing games, we all mocked the instructors, and it was OK.

    One thing that did catch my attention was a gay undergrad who told us about his first assignment in freshman comp: write a story about a fight with your boyfriend or girlfriend. Day one, and he had to decide whether or not to come out. That was a hardfelt story, and it sure stuck out from the professional diversitycrats and their self-important and anti-intellectual program.

    As cynical as I am about all this diversity training - it's mostly a way for the university to buy off some angry and not very bright ideologues with good salaries and increased self-importance - I still think about that student everytime I start a new class, and I almost think it was worth the 4 hours. Besides, the chinese guys in the back helped me work out a tough dynamic programming problem.

  • Inconvenient truth?
  • Posted by Frank on November 7, 2008 at 6:05am EST
  • If justify-your-job, pettiness and CYA was eliminated from public academia -- 70% of administrators would be gone.

    And taxpayers know it.

  • Posted by Larry on November 7, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • I get bored going through the training and I believe that almost all college employees will not committ any kind of harassment, we still need to know how to recognize it when it occurs so that it can be addressed.

  • Manadated SH training
  • Posted by D on November 7, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • ohmigosh....fall on your sword for something worthwhile! The time and energy you have wasted and caused others to waste is childish. So, you have nothing to learn, professor? Get over it and get back to work.

  • Posted by murfinnc on November 7, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but isn't it true that the sciences have a harder time of recruiting and retaining women? So perhaps this is why?

    Also- the Professor insists that the university has done a good job of educating him about the rules and regulations. But the article describes the training as an opportunity to learn more about how to identify sexual harassment. It seems to me that this gentleman is missing the point of the training.

  • re:
  • Posted by PS on November 7, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • Frank - most people know you can learn much more from a book or television on the Discovery or History channels than by going to a class and listening to a professor drone on and on and on for 50 minutes. People tolerate it because they need the piece of paper (degree), not because they are actually learning anything. Or at least there is no evidence they getting anything more out of sitting in a class than learning on their own at home.

    And the public knows it.

  • Posted by Future Professor , PhD Student on November 7, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • As a current graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, I was forced to undergo three hours of race and gender sensitivity training in order to get additional TA pay. When the gentleman leading part of the discussion focused on blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans being minorities in a setting, I raised my hand and interjected.

    My department (a NSF-funded field) is less than one-third white. The thought of a Caucasian being a minority was something that had never crossed this gentleman's mind. He fell over himself apologizing and promised not to be so stereotypical.

    After actively participating in the program, I then got back to solving some Bellman equations.

  • Harassment Training
  • Posted by Bob on November 7, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • These training requirements are also in place to offer some protection for the institution against lawsuits. Sadly, too many of us think that the undisciplined sexual behaviors expressed in the music and media industry are accepted in real life. Apparently they aren't.

    I do understand the professor's stance, but it isn't worth the hassle.

  • Posted by Dexter Alexander on November 7, 2008 at 7:45am EST
  • Mandatory harassment training is the Loyalty Oath of the 21st Century.

  • This is what irks me about faculty
  • Posted by BA on November 7, 2008 at 8:05am EST
  • If this were any other profession, the guy would be fired. Anyone who signs on to work in any organization assumes the responsibilities and requirements of that organization. If he's not happy, he should quit and write his manifestos from home.

  • I agree with the professor!
  • Posted by dundermifflin on November 7, 2008 at 8:25am EST
  • This is about mitigating liability for the college in case of a lawsuit. Nothing else!

    If the desired objective is to help supervisors identify the offending behaviors, then why is it mandatory for all. It should be just for supervisors, and it should be about identifying behaviors, not about clubbing employees over the head with beauracratic bloat as if they all are criminals in waiting.

    So the administrators pitiful defense is that "well no one else has objected". See they do take your silence for agreement. It is more an indictment of the folks who behaved like sheep.

    I can't wait for the training on not removing the tag from your mattress.

  • Oh Puh-Leeze!
  • Posted by Trained on November 7, 2008 at 8:35am EST
  • The arrogance of someone so sure he has nothing to learn that he refuses to participate in what is sure to be a quick and painless training exercise! I took the online training offered by institution. I knew much of what was there, but did learn a few things that may be useful - chief among them what policies and protections are in place at my institution. I feel confident I'd know what to do if one of my staff or students came to me with a grievance against someone else. If you need a ditch to die in, pick one worthwhile. A few minutes in front of your computer screen is not the one.

  • Posted by Lolo on November 7, 2008 at 8:55am EST
  • See here is the thing. These trainings may be boring, or time consuming and perhaps not relevant to everyone. But think bigger than individual training. If you are the head of a university, and you have just one incident of harassment, lets say it was a professor who sexually harassed a student, and lets say that professor did not know that what he was doing was considered harassment or that he offended the student at all. Would it not make sense to say, hmm if this professor does not know there are probably hundreds who do not know so there needs to be more education to help people understand what harrassment is and how to avoid it.

    Programs like this should not be reactive but rather proactive. Harassment needs to be stopped before it happens, and people need to be educated as to what it is (the definition is not so intuitive it is far more complex than you would imagine).

    As an undergraduate, I was once referred to the judicial administrator on charges of sexual harassment because of a text message I sent to a fellow student. I was so upset about the whole thing, but until then I had a limited understanding of sexual harassment. I thought to myself, "why didn't anyone tell me this before." That is why Prof. McPhearson's little protest is quite ridiculous. He argues that the trainings should be directed to departments with a history of harassment. That would be reactive and a little too late. Education on the matter needs to be preventative.

  • state law
  • Posted by GeorgiaBearwell at community college on November 7, 2008 at 8:55am EST
  • If it's a state law, the professor's argument is with the state, not his university. And quite right -- teaching supervisors about harrassment is not the same as implying they are guilty. Much of harrassment behavior has, in the past, been practically the norm (remember articles in women's magazines advising secretaries how to avoid the advances of their bosses as they were chased around the desk??). Learning how to recognize it and deal with both employees and students over these issues is a vital supervisory skill. Even if it were not the law, employers should provide such training, and all those who resist should take a hard look at why they resist. Maybe it's that they prefer the status quo rather than advancing to a more egalitarian society?

  • required training
  • Posted by Pamela on November 7, 2008 at 8:55am EST
  • Over the past three decades, employees in corporate America have been required to complete a number of training modules that are designed to protect the company against lawsuits. It seems as if this law has a similar intent. I suggest that the professor can either seek employment in a different state or he can fight this in court.

  • Meh
  • Posted by Prinskinner on November 7, 2008 at 9:01am EST
  • I've had to attend these types of things at jobs both within, and well outside of, academia. Some were helpful and some were idiotic. It all depends on presentation.

    McPherson may have a legitimate beef if it was presented in an accusing tone, or handled clumsily (as it sounds like it may have been, if no one could give him a clear answer).

    But it also seems likely that McPherson is being overly defensive. It's not a "loyalty oath," any more than a fire drill is. His analogy equating sexual harassment with other crimes is flawed; the university environment lends itself to certain problems, and sexual harassment is one big and expensive such problem.

    Now, when we have to attend seminars on policing our students' use of file-sharing networks, then we can talk about loyalty oaths.

  • perspective
  • Posted by Steven S. Clark on November 7, 2008 at 9:01am EST
  • There are elements of truth in many of the comments against diversity training here. It too often is trivialized, it can smack of thought control, it certainly can be an example of the squeaky wheel getting greased.

    BUT...

    There is surprising naivete out there about what constitutes harassment. In particular, there are sharp cultural distinctions in how people deal with differences. These cultural differences come with people who are from different countries, even different regions of the US. Also, there are ethnic differences in how people are treated.

    Then there are just dense people out there who don't fully understand how their actions affect other people. This is confounded by the fact that the issues can be fairly subtle as well illustrated above in the example of writing an essay about your girl friend or boy friend.

    So, there can be some value in diversity and harassment training when it helps people identify their blind spots and to understand other people's views of things.

    Having said this, I also admit the tremendous difficulty in doing these trainings well and in a way that doesn't trivialize the whole thing. I also admit that, like the good professor, I don't like people telling me what to do, but an employer who pays you can do that.

    Steven S. Clark, PhD

    http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

  • Public Respect for Faculty
  • Posted by WED on November 7, 2008 at 9:01am EST
  • Do we ever wonder why the public looks at faculty as unaware of the real world - maybe it is because of respected educators make a silly stand like this while they (many of the working stiffs that make up the public) would love a portion of the $148,000 that there tax dollars pay or supplement.

  • Posted by Kim on November 7, 2008 at 9:01am EST
  • What a pathetic excuse for a professor and scholar! Is it really going to stall the cure for cancer for the 90 minutes of his time? The reason we are 'forced' to have these types of seminars is because of the abuses of those in power positions. Frankly, everyone that works in a public setting that seek any form of public funding should be required to attend a variety of awareness-raising, informational settings. Get out of your labs on occasion and realize that there are problems that need to be confronted and addressed. I don't plan to run over anyone with my car but I had to take a test to get to drive one!

  • Posted by Steve on November 7, 2008 at 9:01am EST
  • I teach communication, business, and sports law at the college level and I fully sympathize with Prof. McPherson's position. I, too, had to complete a sexual harassment "test" online before I could assume my position as a professor. Once I handed in the certificate I received upon completing the test with a satisfactory score, I was hired and nothing more was ever mentioned about it. The point of the test, however, is not to imply or even remotely hint that the person taking it has any possible inclination to be someone who might engage in offensive sexual conduct in the workplace. The point of these tests is to provide a legal defense to the institution should an employee (and derivatively the employer)be sued for sexual harassment. Once an employer can prove (with the test results or other evidence of a training course, etc.) that it took the issue seriously, trained its employees, and even tested them, the employer will, in all likelihood, be dismissed out of the case and leave the employee solely responsible for the offense (both financially and in terms of paying for an attorney). There is nothing more than a purely financial reason for the testing procedure. While I disagree with the practice, I fully understand the motivation behind it. In an overly litigious society, more and more employers and other organizations are taking every possible precaution to insulate themselves from financial ruin as a result of adverse judgments. Of course, this begs the question of why is an honorable and upstanding educator with a spotless record forced to take such a test? The answer, I'm afraid cannot be found in the Constitution, however, it can only be found on the balance sheet. Prof. McPherson has a great job and I'm afraid his protest, while laudable, is going to fall on deaf ears in court and he will find himself a victim of America's fixation with litigation and the extreme steps that are taken to avoid liability. This is hardly the battleground you want to leave a brilliant career on. Take the test and go back to your true calling of teaching future generations. You will be more successful imprinting them with your values than tilting at windmills to prove a point.

  • McPherson/cal Irvine
  • Posted by Guido Stempel , distinguished profssor emeritus at ohio university on November 7, 2008 at 9:01am EST
  • This sounds like another policy established by some administrator who hasn't been in the classroom for years, if ever. Is there a real problem at Irvine, or is this another case of a cure for which there is no disease.
    McPherson, of course,will be welcome at many
    universities. Cal Irvine would be well advised to back down.

  • Posted by Patrick Clark on November 7, 2008 at 9:25am EST
  • Georgia makes a good point. The university has to comply with state law. The Professor's tantrum forces the university into punishing him even though I'm guessing they'd rather not feed the histrionics even more. Raging against the administration cannot have any effect.

    I appreciate people taking stands on issues and refusing to compromise, but give me a serious break. In any job anywhere in this country, employees are required to attend training that they may find insulting or not useful or stupid, but most of us are capable of simply going along for a moment without needing to stage a melodramatic protest. Complying with a brief online training session will hardly injure the man or his dignity or society. Perhaps it will help him provide aid to a student some day. What an arrogant windbag!

  • Loyalty Oaths are the New Loyalty Oaths
  • Posted by Hugh , Masters Student on November 7, 2008 at 9:26am EST
  • A couple of folks, including the professor in questions, have advanced Loyalty Oaths as the hypothetical next step. Both of the state-run universities I've worked for have indeed required loyalty oaths. At the first I was able to protest my non-Americanness, but more recently, after talking to everyone from the legal department to the ombudsman it was decided that if I didn't swear an oath to the Constitutions of both the United States and the State (!) I wouldn't be seeing my pay.

    Who knows what wackiness is in the State Constitution, which I am now sworn to uphold! Apparently it's a ripple effect from McCarthyite policy.

  • exasperated
  • Posted by Toni C on November 7, 2008 at 9:26am EST
  • Of all the problems in the world, this professor is choosing this? Seriously? I think it is good that he has been stripped of his supervisory responsibilities. A harassment training, while dull and not anyones first choice for spending their time, can help a supervisor identify possibly harassing behavior amongst employees. Many states have this law (it is a law, not a university policy).
    Yes we have a litigious society, and yes the administration is getting the benefit of covering themselves by complying with this law, but isn't there something to be said for better preparing your employees to recognize potentially harmful behavior? Remaining ignorant of these facts won't prevent harassing behavior from happening, it can happen anywhere.
    It also makes me curious why this professor feels so strongly that this implies he has done something wrong. I took penmanship in the 3rd grade, but when I went to work for a company that developed medical tests and was regulated by the FDA, I had to take a training course on how to write on documents! Maybe I should have protested that

  • closed door
  • Posted by Director of... on November 7, 2008 at 10:00am EST
  • I am a principled person and can understand taking a stand for something that is against one's principles. However, I don't know that he professor is aware of the message he is sending to all of his female studentes and supervisees. I would be very surprised, if harrassment acutally did happen in his department,if a student or employee would feel comfortable even reporting that incident to him. Maybe he would shake it off, it does not look like harrassment to him, so it should not be big deal. This happens too many times to young female students especially. Harrassment training can help someone think outside their personal judgements to see the perspective of the violated one.

  • Harrassment Training
  • Posted by NoPatience4Hubris on November 7, 2008 at 10:00am EST
  • To McPhereson: you have achieved the unenviable position of proudly proclaiming your unwillingness to learn about things that matter to everyone. As a tenured member of the higher education community, I urge you to think about that hard and long, sir.

    To UCI: Perhaps the windfall of his withheld salary can be used to recompense the State and Federal Government for his diversion of FTE in recent months from those things he should have been doing (for which he has been handsomely compensated) to this unfortunate digression from reason.

    I'm reminded of the First Law of Holes: When you find yourself in a hole you dug with a shovel in your hand, QUIT DIGGING.

  • Poor example of the profession
  • Posted by J. O. , Associate Professor at Big U on November 7, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • To those of you who say you "teach" or will be future "teachers," but who also are proud to say you have nothing to learn, boast about sitting in the back of a class, doing the crossword puzzle or problem sets, behaving rudely to the person leading the workshop, mocking the teacher and the subject: may all your students be as close-minded, rude, mocking, and ignorant as you. The contempt you display toward the very concept that your students and colleagues may be suffering because of bigoted behavior (that you ignore or condone, or even perpetuate) shows exactly why it is still such a grotesque problem at universities, and why universities continue to be a cold and hostile environment for manyy people. You and your close-mindedness are part of the problem. You simply have no clue, and I pity the people who will have to be your colleagues and students, because they will know they cannot trust you when they experience discrimination in the workplace because you will jeer at them and call them whiners. Boasting about your ignorance in a public forum shows how deep-rooted these attitudes are.
    I am required by my institution to take an online course regarding confidentiality laws, even though I "know" about it and would never knowingly violate the law. But guess what? I learned something I didn't realize that I didn't know. It's what we do.

  • Posted by B on November 7, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • I am truly shocked at so many "progressive" and "rights" oriented faculty speaking out against the Professor's stand. For those of you chastising him, would you still be so critical if it was mandatory "Put America First" training? Or mandatory Patriotism training? One commentator made what looks like a valid point, which is that it may be a matter of state law, and if such there is little cause to criticize the university, as the wrong target. But I am fed up to here with political correctness being shoved down my throat. Where is the training to be sensitive to conservative ideas and people, which are constantly ridiculed on campuses (or often denied the right to speak). As the professor says, why not require anti-auto theft training? Watch and see if Obama and the "liberals" who control the government next Spring don't initiate moves to shut down or curtail conservative talk shows. I am tired of left wingers shoving their political correctness down our throats and stifling conservative ideas and principles on our campuses. For those of you who defend it as a valid measure to avoid lawsuits, then you should be criticizing a legal system with such a low threshhold for finding a university to be allowing sexual harrassment. Our loose, litigation encouraging (and rewarding) legal system would be a much better target for criticism.

  • WAY OUT OF LINE
  • Posted by Sarah , Program Director on November 7, 2008 at 10:25am EST
  • My institution also has required sexual harassment training. You'd be amazed at how many faculty say really offensive and inappropriate things to women in their classes, such as, 'I just love to read the ladies t-shirts in here'. THAT particular instructor said he was being complimentary.

    This man is a supervisor at a STATE institution. That alone says if it is required by state law, we must do it. When did that become part of academic freedom.

    But as a supervisor, consider this. I have had staff harass each other, and harass students. Sometimes a complaint by a student goes straight to the President's office before it gets to us, sometimes to HR, sometimes directly to us. Isn't it important that we know what to do?????

    Faculty supervisors who think that administrative policies and procedures don't apply to them are the ones most likely to screw up. I'd like to know how familiar this guy is with who to contact if one of his staff or graduate research assistants came to him about being sexually harassed. First, would he even know what that meant? Would he know what to say? And would he know who to contact?

    In my fifteen years at this institution, probably a dozen faculty or more have called ME because they didn't know who to call when a student tells them they've been raped (or such a story shows up in a paper for a class), when a student has been harassed routinely by a TA, when a TA under a professor had a psychotic break in class, when an instructor was being stalked by a graduate student around campus because he thought she was hot, and on and on and on. I work for academic services, but they call me because they have no idea how to deal with this stuff. Thank heaven I do, or at least know who to call to find out for them.

    Whatever information we can give faculty to get better at handling difficult situations under their supervision, the better.

    This guy isn't worth keeping around in my opinion. How many situations has this guy botched or ignored or will botch because of his arrogance? We aren't talking about filling out a form wrong, we aren't even necessarily covering the university's buns here. We are talking about people's lives potentially being really damaged or endangered here. What a thoughtless, inconsiderate person. He doesn't deserve to work with staff or students.

  • Posted by Dances With Books , Academic Librarian on November 7, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • I have to agree with some of the respondents here: if all the PC patrol, CYA, justify their existence crap was eliminated, most administrators would be out of a job (and we could then get on with our real work). Yes, the SH training is pretty much CYA, but hey, you do it or lose the job, man. So, buckle up and do it already. No amount of petty bureaucratic nonsense is worth losing the job. And no, I am not making light of the issue of SH, but of the way these "trainings" operate.

    And if I read the story right, you can do it online. Man, just fire up your online streaming music, and get on with it. I did. Two crappy hours or so (I have to say mine included modules on other stuff too. We do our compliance every year about now). I just put on the music, opened up a couple other webpages to surf in between pauses, and got it over with. Do I think it sucks? Yes it does. But at the moment, I happen to like my job. One has to pick their fights.

  • A third option to deal with PC nonsense
  • Posted by Wes Ramsay on November 7, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • Prof. McPherson's stance is very understandable!

    However, a bit of creativity might be in order:

    Therefore, take the class. But, take a videographer with you, and record this nonsense for all to see. Turn it into a documentary. After all, it is mandated by the State, and paid for by the taxpayer. Allow the taxpayer see what he/she is purchasing, with the state running record deficits.

    Take all the documents and notes with you, and publish the funnier excerpts. Don't resist these people, shine the light of day upon them!

    Laughter is the one thing the self-righteous politically correct loathe the most, and this situation is truly laughable.

    Now, if we could just have required Bill Clinton to sit through the classes in late 1991, or Jesse Jackson in the late 1990's(how old would that child be now?), or any numbers of Congressmen and Senators, think what a wonderful world it would be...

    Do you think they would have responded positively, changed their ways?

    Or, would they be exempt, as icons of Left?

  • Posted by JC on November 7, 2008 at 11:10am EST
  • This professor is an embarrassment to the profession and exhibits no understanding of or allegiance to the University or public interests.

  • Prof Risks Pay to Avoid Harassment Training
  • Posted by Rae , Pick Your Battles on November 7, 2008 at 11:10am EST
  • "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18 / Webster's Bible Translation

    I, too, had to go through the obligatory (online) harassment training in order to be gainfully employed at my institution. It was long. I was too busy. It was tedious. But, you know what? I actually learned a couple of things while undergoing this legally sanctioned form of torture. And, as a result, I am now (I hope) a little more sensitive to others.

    If I were Alexander McPherson, I would be embarrassed to so publicly admit that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Wisdom means learning new things. You’re never too old to learn. And, if you feel that you are, in fact, too old--or too proud--to learn, then perhaps you should no longer be teaching.

    Snarky remark: Pay me $148,000.00 a year and I will undergo whatever training you want!

    Rae

  • Bottom Line
  • Posted by Sara on November 7, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • The bottom line is this... just because this person may have the common sense or ethics not to harass - others don't. We know this to be true, unfortunately laws and policies must be written to the lowest common denomenator - period. Your school, organization etc. is only as good as you worst employee or student.

  • Stating the obvious?
  • Posted by Frank on November 7, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • "Frank — most people know you can learn much more .."

    Yup, yup, yup. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs figured that out. Be sure to drop us a line from billionaires' row.

  • Posted by Joseph O'Brien on November 7, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • This prof is just being a stubborn old you know what. Any person in a supervisory position needs this typye of training. If he wants to get upset about something, he should really be upset about the cancelling of a speech at the University of Nebraska due to political pressure. We all need to take our energy and protest what happened there. Hopefully in this new political age people will grow their spin back.

  • showing that you know
  • Posted by jayvee , professor on November 7, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • All science professors know about placement tests. The student who wants to take Calculus II because she or he has already learned Calculus I doesn't need to take a whole course in Calculus I. We provide a placement test.
    In the same way, faculty members who say "I already know this stuff" should be able to show that they already know the relevant laws about sexual harassment, and that they can identify examples of inappropriate behavior, by passing a test. The three hours on-line is indeed a waste of time for those who already know this stuff, but is immensely valuable for those who do not -- and equally valuable to those over whom these not-yet-educated folks have power.

  • Principle, Schmincible
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on November 7, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • Dexter -- this is not about loyalty oaths. It's about learning something that might actually make Alexander a better supervisor.

    Alexander -- get over yourself and take the training. Better yet, don't -- and allow the university to spend your salary on somebody who isn't such a prima donna.

  • Middle Ground
  • Posted by Anna on November 7, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • It seems the biggest complaint about the training is boredom and irrelevance. This kind of training, and the whole idea of sexual harassment protection is pretty new, and as another commenter stated, not for all. Perhaps the real problem is with the training curriculum...sexual harassment is far reaching and has implications that affect all...maybe a more interesting, direct and tailored training session is needed. The professor may not see himself as a possible offender, but how about a victim? Or relate the training to creating environment welcoming to women, which I believe is quite relevant to his area of study...

  • Posted by Tim on November 7, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Get off your high horse, Professor. Sexual harassment training in no way implies that you might harass someone. Any decent training program covers a number of sexual harassment issues, including how to foster a harassment-free environment as well as how managers should handle harassment in their unit (especially those situations involving two people who work under your supervision). As the supervisor of your unit, you should be trained in the proper procedures for handling these situations, even if you are not directly involved in the alleged incident.

  • Say Good Bye
  • Posted by T on November 7, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Another clueless prof who presumes expertise in everything and needs attention so desparately that he'll defy anything.
    Wake up & smell the real world!
    The isn't a localized decision, employers are required to comply with this so complain to the legislators. Personally, I hope that you continue to defy this requirement and the judge helps you eat the $ that you deserve to loose -along with your job. Good luck finding another; you'll have to have that same training within the first six months and without tenure your level of tolerance may change.
    For selfish reasons alone you need to do some research and see how many instructors have been accused of harassing students; most of which are legit (full-time and part-time). Opening dialogue with colleagues about scenarios and where to go for assistance is how we help reduce liability and also educate appropriate standards in the workplace.
    It's people like this who will cause a continued resentment and additional accountability standards from those outside of education. Tenure doesn't mean that you're exempt and enjoy the growing unemployment line.

  • It's the law
  • Posted by Compliance Officer on November 7, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • The dear professor has made a mountain out of something relatively minor. And since this is a legal requirement, as a state institution UCI does not have a choice about enforcing it -- which means requiring managers and supervisors to take the training. I can't help but wonder what is really behind the professor's objections. He says he cares about his students, but this conduct doesn't show it. Ditto his research and his grant. He's behaving in a ridiculous manner.

  • The Harassment Industry
  • Posted by Doug Giebel on November 7, 2008 at 1:55pm EST
  • In her excellent book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Prof. Daphne Patai accurately refers to sexual harassment prevention/training as an industry.
    A central problem is that sexual harassment exists in the eye of the beholder or the harassment hunter. Recently this writer was falsely accused of sexual harassment, and when over-zealous administrators investigating the issues could find no quid pro quo "sex" or "sexual" evidence, they accepted as fact the student's provably-false statement that because the student chose skip class the student had been denied "a valuable educational benefit." In many cases, once the anti-harassment steam-roller is revved up, fairness and logic are squashed in order to set an example and to justify administrative eagerness to find guilt where none may exist.
    Harassment training will not prevent real harassment, nor will it prevent false allegations and false findings of harassment by the many desiring power or revenge.
    And although the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights holds out the possibility of withholding funds from institutions, the threat has never been implemented.

  • Harassment Training
  • Posted by Dan Mitchell , Faculty at De Anza College on November 7, 2008 at 1:55pm EST
  • I have mixed feelings about this issue. While I share a concern that there are those on the staff and faculty of colleges/universities need to think about their attitudes and how they affect those they work with and teach, I also think that the presumption that we all need to be taught (every few years, at my college) to not commit crimes is offensive.

  • Posted by Kathleen on November 7, 2008 at 2:00pm EST
  • Kim, your comment was the best in the thread:

    "I don’t plan to run over anyone with my car but I had to take a test to get to drive one!"

    :) right on.

  • Preventing university liability is a legitimate purpose
  • Posted by Dan on November 7, 2008 at 2:00pm EST
  • I am a tenured faculty member who teaches law at a public Research One university where we also are required to go through such training when hired. I also serve as a hearing officer for discrimination complaints internally and mediate employment discrimination claims outside the university. So let me tell ya a little something.

    This is not about accusing anyone of anything. But if there's ever an incident, the university can rely on the fact that it provided training as a way of avoiding liability. And if, the university has to pay out because someone avoided the training, well, that's funding that isn't available for research, classes, new carpeting, etc.

    So employees can darn well put up with the training - especially if they can just do the computer program while otherwise doing other work, watching TV, etc. When I've gone through such mandatory training (several times now) - knowing full well that I understand the law on this better than the person doing the training - I just bring a book and count it as time spent fulfilling an obligation, much like having to listen to my Dean bloviate at faculty meetings about his fascinating adventures courting possible donors.

    As for the argument that the requirement is "just politics," well - what isn't?

  • Posted by Befuddled on November 7, 2008 at 2:00pm EST
  • I can’t believe the number of people that don’t get it. I applaud Lolo for trying to explain it. Sexual Harassment is not successful as reactive medicine. There is no way to know (as an employer) who might, who will and who won’t commit an act of harassment. Academic Freedom doesn’t cover everything people. Since this training DOES NOT impose on his academics in any way, I hope he loses his job permanently. Abuse of the term Academic Freedom is why so many Americans loath the professorship in this country. Arrogance doesn’t garner sympathy.

  • Preventing university liability is a legitimate purpose
  • Posted by dundermifflin on November 7, 2008 at 3:00pm EST
  • What??? Lets not encourage the lawyers so that we lose sight of the forest for the trees.

    Please feel free to add as many absurd examples as you like:

    Use the following format:

    Professors/students/administrators might...

    get VD from unprotected sex, therefore it should be mandatory that all where condoms 24/7

    get pregnant, therefore all should be sterilized

    have a car accident, therefore all should give up their cars

    offend someone, therefore they should all have extreme sensitivity training and should observe frequent moments of silence

    Say it with me - the tail is wagging the dog to appease the attorneys so that we might avoid something that "might" happen in the future...but more than likely will not for the vast majority of people.

    a meteor might fall on our heads, therefore we will all start living in underground bunkers...

  • What is going on?
  • Posted by Les on November 7, 2008 at 3:00pm EST
  • This guy's response to a minor, reasonable request seems so over the top, it makes me wonder what is really going on? It brings to mind all the preachers and politicians who make a living loudly proclaiming against something that is a part of their private lives. Is he so rigid and self-righteous in other aspects of dealing with others? Life is full of petty requirements--why did he pick this one to go ballistic about? Or is just one of many high horses he rides on?

  • I can see both sides
  • Posted by rjr on November 7, 2008 at 3:25pm EST
  • If it were just sexual harassment training, I would tell the prof to suck it up. Yet, it seems like every year, we're being forced to spend more 4 hour sessions on sexual harassment, grant compliance, human subjects, fire safety(!), learning how to mentor graduate students (even those of us who have been doing just fine at it for 20 years).

    To those who claim this guy is a waste of taxpayer dollars, I ask you to sit down with faculty members and try to figure out how many sessions such as these they do per year...at my institution, it amounts to at least 2 weeks worth of lost work. So, yes, a 4 hour session will not likely cause the cure for cancer to go unnoticed, but 2 weeks could mean the loss of a research grant, reduced mentoring of students, etc.

    A recent article in the CHE reminded us that full time administrators have increased 200+% in recent years and their salaries have beat inflation. For those of you worried about tuition costs, here's the cause.

  • Posted by JH , Poor analogy on November 7, 2008 at 3:35pm EST
  • Requiring training does not imply guilt of harrassment, but rather the potential for it if standards aren't understood. This is like saying you shouldn't have to take drivers education because it implies you are a bad driver. Perhaps we should only require driver's ed for people who have already had an accident.

  • Taking a Hard Look at My Dislikes
  • Posted by Jeff Riggenbach on November 7, 2008 at 3:35pm EST
  • "Even if it were not the law, employers should provide such training, and all those who resist should take a hard look at why they resist."

    I took a hard look at why I resist forced exposure to politically correct propaganda. I discovered that it's because I dislike politically correct propaganda.

    JR

  • IDIOCY 101
  • Posted by Dean , Dean on November 7, 2008 at 4:15pm EST
  • Just fire the guy and get it over with. The man is a idiot, a DIVA, or mistaking himself for a god. Sadly he is just another wage slave and requiring him to attend training is a management prerogative.

    If he thinks he is above such things, let him find another job and stop harping on principles.

    No wonder Higher Education is held in such contempt by ordinary mortals who dont have the protection of tenure as a shield against idiocy.

  • Why is training a good idea?
  • Posted by professor at Large State University on November 7, 2008 at 4:15pm EST
  • A mandatory training program protects the university administration, because in case of a lawsuit, the administration can point out that faculty were warned about what not to do.

    If the training is done well, it will warn the professor about what sexual harassment really is. It's not obvious: Complimenting a female student on her looks? Taking a student out to lunch? Being alone in a faculty office with a student? Dating a student?

    The professor in question is so quick to jump his moral high horse that he clears the saddle by a couple of feet. He (of course) is convinced that he knows what sexual harassment is and is not. But if he ends up getting sued, he'll find out in court that what matters is what the **student** considers to be sexual harassment.
    An accusation of sexual harassment could spell the end of the professor's career. Even an justifiable accusation.

    If the training is done well, it will pass along tips to avoid sexual harassment accusations. For example: KEEP THE DOOR TO YOUR FACULTY OFFICE OPEN AT ANY TIME THAT A STUDENT IS WITH YOU. Tips like this can save the professor's career. He doesn't want the training? Dummy!!!

  • JR
  • Posted by DFS on November 7, 2008 at 4:20pm EST
  • Jeff, you're right. However, remember that it's ultimately an industry of lawyers behind this -- otherwise, the actual laws would be sufficient to modulate behavior.

    It's ultimately just some ever-moving target, and therefore the perfect venue for the lawyer.

  • Posted by Befuddled on November 7, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • I find it amusing how faculty don’t have a problem with training like this until they are required to do it. I had this type of mandatory training over five years ago. Anything that faculty are “required” to do they will resist simply because they think they can. But by all means, if you want to open yourself up to lawsuits, be my guest. I fight for every dollar I get, so a couple hours of prevention is a good investment in my book. The litigation-happy nature of American society is a reality, like it or not.

  • Don't blame the lawyers
  • Posted by Bill M. on November 7, 2008 at 4:55pm EST
  • Blaming lawyers/the law for this is a dodge.

    An intelligent person can be taught what he/she needs to know about avoiding employer-employee legally actionable harassment in 15 minutes or less. Teacher-student harassment can be covered in 2 minutes or so.

    The silly sessions such as the one the professor refused to attend are run by non-lawyer "diversity consultants" and go way beyond what you need to know to not violate the law, and from those I am familiar with, often give flatly incorrect advice on the law.

    If your University General Counsel is giving a seminar on harassment law, you should go. It'll be short, informative, and you'll learn the actions that could actually let someone sue you and win.

    If it's not important enough to be taught by the lawyers your University employees, but rather is taught by some outside non-lawyer diversity trainer, the odds are pretty good you are getting "re-educated" and a thinking person ought to refuse, in my humble opinion.

  • You're right, Bill M., but . . .
  • Posted by DFS on November 7, 2008 at 5:15pm EST
  • the entire thing is done only by the ultimate threat of legal action (normally conducted by lawyers).

    Everything you said in your post is right on. I was only being philosophical about the roots.

    You should have written the article. Your viewpoint on the practicalities -- and objectives -- involved are more to the point.

    Just keep doing what you do.

  • learned behavior
  • Posted by Jayne , Director on November 7, 2008 at 5:40pm EST
  • It's crucial for supervisors to be able to recognize and act sincerely on sexual harassment, which is still vastly overlooked in the workplace. This behavior cannot be compared to murder or theft as it's a level of learned conscienceness that historically has been widely accepted in our society. If the good professor wishes to make a comparison, instill racial or intellectual biases as factors.

  • McPherson case
  • Posted by harvester on November 7, 2008 at 5:55pm EST
  • The commentators attacking this principled scientist and scholar for resisting mandatory sensitivity-training sessions by higher ed's most conspicuous underachiever class--PC drones--is appalling evidence of the power of fear, intimidation, and academic group-think. Pointing out the legal requirement Professor McPherson is defying is one thing, but attacking his character over the matter is shameful.

  • right on
  • Posted by Foxman on November 7, 2008 at 7:30pm EST
  • I was forced to do the same thing. It is outrageous, how university funds are wasted on travesties like this.

    It violates every single principle of (academic freedom) that I can think of.

    Things would not be so bad if there was research showing this "training" to be effective. Alas, all research shows it to be ineffective.

    Having the gall to suggest that someone could benefit from a "training" as silly as those currently on the market borders on the insulting.

    Where is this country going?

  • Posted by faculty observer on November 7, 2008 at 9:55pm EST
  • My congratulations to this man, however I fear that he has no idea of what it will take to keep his job. He must first understand that non-gay, non-minority, white guys have not yet learned to stick together in a cohesive and supportive manner. This is essential to survival in today's academia.

    I wish him well!

  • Posted by Amanda Huggenkiss on November 7, 2008 at 9:55pm EST
  • I find it telling that so many ignorant commenters think the "training" in question has any effect. Or not. Has it ever been scientifically tested? Are harassers miraculously transformed after a 2-hour group lecture/roleplay session?

    There is no description of the exact "training" being refused. Hints in the article [and from fellows at the U n question] indicate it is one of those lame morality quizzes that automatically flag the test-taker if not taken within a certain time-frame [you know, the ones where you fail if you finish in 5 minutes with a perfect score].

    Someone on another article mentioned McCarthyism recently; I think they're right to invoke it. Witch-hunting is back in fashion.

  • This isn't a mere "employee"
  • Posted by viejita del oeste on November 8, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • I'm surprised how many comments here overlook the real issue. This guy brings research grants into his university in much the same way that a lawyer or agent brings clients into his firm. He feels secure making an example of himself in defense of other staffers and faculty members who may be less secure in their positions. He knows he is safe drawing his line in the sand because he can take his research dollars with him to another institution. If so, who loses? McPherson or Cal Irvine?
    If I knew a way to call attention to ways my employer wastes our time, I might do so as well.

  • Are we all missing the point?
  • Posted by Kirk Baker on November 8, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • Wow - I'm kind of floored by the broad, sweeping statements people feel comfortable making about sexual harassment programs.

    Probably, anyone who has sat through more than one will have sat through at least one that is boring and added little, if nothing, to previously-existing knowledge (I know I have).

    But isn't saying they are all a waste of time - or only good for working on geek-a-trivia - showing our own inability to think clearly? I don't know anyone who claims to understand all the complexities, examples, or systemic practicies of sexism. So, everyone can learn more. For example, if someone apologized because a white person is a numerical minority in a department, that facilitator just wasn't very well prepared; anyone who thinks social status is determined by numerical superiority fails to grasp one of the most basic concepts of equality. We should all be aware that women usually outnumber men, in most cultures and worldwide, but no one would state this means women socially dominate men!

    Our real problem is poorly prepared facilitators and poorly designed programs. The same is true for classes where students could "learn more by watching the Discovery or History channel." Until universities care about learning, and a culture of learning infuses the entire campus, a lot of what we do will seem questionable to others.

    90% of the arguments in here don't have anything to do with sexual harassment training programs - they have to do with the way those programs are implemented.

  • Is it really about "law?"
  • Posted by Prof Ed on November 8, 2008 at 6:35pm EST
  • OK granted, "BA" has a point--an employer wants employees trained; they pay employees for their time spent in doing the training. So long as employers don't try to own a person by taking his or her personal time with such training, and do training on company grounds and paid company time, fine.

    But the comments here express motivations far beyond any simple "do it and get paid for it" issue, and some are really sick. The writers ought to be embarrassed.

    First, look at comments that express that they wish harm on a person who apparently has not harmed another. The rhetoric here shows fear of an individual who exercises autonomy as an adult and says "no."

    There are going to be plenty of people who take this "diversity training" and go out and harass others (including white males) and violate the law. Why not reserve such vehemence for those who acted in such a way as to deserve penalty, not some professor who apparently never broke a law or violated others?

    Just how many laws and problems can we use to establish training offices on campus? "Diversity" went from a noble aspiration to a rather despicable one when it began to try to intimidate citizens into sympathy with breaking selective laws that many diversity advocates don't like. Ask these counterfeit intellectuals, "Why aren't we seeing compulsory training to thwart illegal immigration? What do you not understand about 'illegal?'" It is no wonder they now put these courses online where reasoned dialogue cannot occur. This is not about law--it's about a powerful political "cause."

    Constitutional law is actually being subverted by the very people demanding that others sign loyalty oaths to abide by constitutions? What a massive charade!

    Let someone state honestly that "the emperor has no clothes" and those petrified of any adult exercising autonomy will be first to advocate for force to harm any individual who refuses to agree and act in concert with them or their cause. We should all be thinking and saying "no" when warranted.

  • Unacceptable
  • Posted by Neuron on November 9, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • The only purpose of "programs" like this is to give work to "diversity consultants". I do not know how these people can live with themselves. Probably beats working.

    What is worse, how can the taxpayers and students who fund these useless harassments condone this?

    And yes, I said it. The only time I felt harassed myself at a University is when I had to take a the harassment training. How ironic.

    In the 19th century, a US college had - on average - 4 administrators. A president, a provost, a librarian and a registrar.

    It might be a good idea to go back to that.

    Is any of this nonsense actually going to improve research or teaching? I highly doubt it.

    This is disgusting. Is there any hope for a political solution?

  • today's McCarthyism
  • Posted by UC Prof , Prof. at UC campus on November 9, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • The enforcers of this sexual harassment doctrine are today's little fascists, trying to get their McCarthyite attitudes imposed on the campus. And it is a rare professor with the integrity to stand up against them. The cost is high, as can be seen here.

    Fortunately most faculty don't take well to this kind of nonsense. Privately they laugh at it and at the sexual harassment bureaucracy that has spread through UC. Eventually they will throw these little fools out of their jobs. They already hold them in contempt.

  • Many incidents of harassment go unreported..
  • Posted by PhilosopherP on November 9, 2008 at 11:40am EST
  • Because harassment begins in sitations of unequal power, it takes many incidents before one victim actually reports it. For this reason, only giving training to those against whom a complaint has been made is simply a bad idea. Everyone needs the training in order to recognize harassment.

    I agree that the form of the training can and must improve -- to include a viable 'test out' option for those who have had it before. Mabye the best form would be to require a longer in-person 'starter' class, with regular on-line refresher courses required in following years. Personally, I think that the course should be taught by trained faculty -- to faculty, so that real questions and concerns about classroom / lab / department climate can be discussed.

    It seems to me that this prof has only prior generations of profs to blame for this situation. He should think back to grad school and consider how much harassment was going on -- about grad student/prof relationships he knew about, or knows about now. He should think about the infamous 'old lech' that undergrad females knew to avoid etc.

    As a scientist, he should look around at professional conferences and wonder why there aren't more women.... but, instead he's willing to risk a really nice salary on a principle that isn't all that stand-worthy. Sounds to me like a lack of critical thinking skills.

  • Harassment Training
  • Posted by history_mom on November 9, 2008 at 4:40pm EST
  • To all the "anti-PC" know-nothings:

    Yes, how dare anybody suggest that in the workplace you should not get a free pass to continue saying sexist, racist, homophobic, or ableist comments or engaging in discriminatory behavior! How terribly shocking to expect you to treat all fellow employees, subordinates, and students with dignity and respect. Why, you'd think it was 2008!

    Whenever someone starts talking about how they hate PC, you can be sure you are in the presence of someone who wishes they could be sexist and/or bigoted without consequence.

  • Delightful!
  • Posted by Nicolas Martin on November 10, 2008 at 8:15am EST
  • What a rare and splendid thing it is to behold a man who doesn't lie down in the road so that the political establishment can run over him. America has a shortage of spine and civil disobedience.

  • Posted by Zoltan on November 10, 2008 at 9:15am EST
  • This man supervises a lab of postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduates. As their supervisor, he is responsible for their actions, just as any other supervisor in any other field. How can he know how to appropriately and legally respond to a complaint from some ug when a postdoc is potentially harassing an undergrad?

    McPherson is simply arrogant.

  • Tick Tock
  • Posted by Waiting for the Hammer to Drop on November 10, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Today is Nov 11th...

    Has the Professor taken the training?

    Will the University let him go?

    I want to know. As a woman who was harassed by a professor and the university did nothing, I want to know. As a member of administration of a University who mandates SH training to protect our faculty and students, I want to know.

    Did the University roll over and let the professor disregard the law? Did the professor realize the error of his ways and pettiness of his fight and take the training?

    I want to know.

    For all the others who have agreed with this professor, I am ashamed for you. What message are you sending about our profession? The nobel profession of teaching - as lead by spoiled individuals who mock other instructors as they teach? Who sit in the back of a class and ignore, undermine, who ignore video, guess at answers on a test, and generally show utter disrepect. Wow. I am sure that you are also the same individuals who are quick to speak poorly about the students in your classes - I wonder where they learned their behaviors from. Your rights? What about the rights of the students not to be harassed? What about the rights of the other staff at the university not to be harassed?

    If you want to keep your job (not your right - but your job), take the training and shut your mouth.

    I get so tired of listening to individuals like this professor and his supporters about their rights. It is a job - not a right. If you don't like the policies and procedures that come with the job - quit or get fired. Become self-employed - then you can make your own policies and procedures.

    But don't confuse job responsibilities with individual rights.

    IHE, please be sure to follow up on this story.

    A Curious Mind

  • Posted by Ephalba D. Witch on November 10, 2008 at 3:10pm EST
  • Anyone else think Waiting for the Hammer to Drop was asking for harassment?

    Or is this absurd question just as absurd as someone actually believing that mandatory sexual harassment training will STOP bad behavior.

    Making everyone suffer because someone violated you is neither justice nor fair.

    Stop projecting your personal issues onto similar situations. The man in question did nothing other than refuse to participate in the "training" on the grounds that it's both insulting and unnecessary.

    He committed no crime other than rejecting the witch-hunt.

    And for that, the villagers with the big, pointy pitchforks cry for him to be burned!

  • The times, they are a changing...
  • Posted by Dr. Rob on November 11, 2008 at 3:40pm EST
  • When I was a boy, my Mom and Dad taught me to treat people with respect. Gender had nothing to do with it; all people regardless of race creed, color, or sex, deserved to be treated with respect. I did not need to take special training to recognize this fact. It sounds like Dr. McPherson understands this principle to me.

    I support Dr. McPherson. I am sick and tired of all the politically correct wackos that attempt to impose their demeaning agendas on others through ridiculous, politically motivated laws that chip away at personal liberties.

    I'm with you Dr. McPherson! Stick to your principles; don't give in.

  • Insubordination is insubordination...
  • Posted by Terrence R. Wildman , Staff Research Associate at UC Davis on November 12, 2008 at 2:20pm EST
  • is insubordination, whether committed by a lowly technician or a lofty professor. Fire his pigheaded ass and hire a replacement. No one is irreplaceable.

  • Sexual Harassment Training Objection
  • Posted by Alexander McPherson , Professor at UC, Irvine on November 20, 2008 at 11:30pm EST
  • Yesterday Ms. Ann Frank wrote an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education that touched upon my objection to sexual harassment training imposed by the University of California, Irvine. I believe that Ms. Franke failed to represent my position as it should have been. Below is my reply to Ms. Franke along with a brief essay that I wrote earlier this week, and some brief notes that I received from interested readers of the OC Register.

    Dear Ms. Franke,

    I read your essay and was impressed, but not with the balance and precision that you used to describe my perspective and my actions. My objection to compulsory training of any type by the state or the University has rather little to do, in fact, with sexual harassment or gender politics issues, but much to do, I believe, with defending the dignity and liberties of individuals within the system. I don't think this came through very clearly. One of the two items I have attached below is a short essay of mine that appeared on the mindingthecampus.com website of the Manhatten Institute last Monday. Hopefully that clarifies my circumstances and my position. I would like you to take particular note of the compromise solution that I offered to the University, with which they refused to agree. Perhaps you, as an attorney, can explain to me why. The University declines to offer any explanation.

    There is one point in particular that you made with which I especially take exception. It read "It is difficult to understand how a program mandated by state law, covering hundreds of thousands of supervisors, could adversely affect one participants reputation". By that logic, it follows that if you offend and violate enough people, then you have not offended and violated anyone. That's nonsense. I am reminded of a very old Woody Allen movie from about 35 years ago (before he began channeling Kierkegaard) called, I think, Bananas. In one vignette there is a dictator, modeled after Castro, who becomes increasingly eccentric. Eventually, he issues an edict that everyone in his realm will wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes rather than beneath (Woody Allen was still funny in those days). Now I'm sure Il Lieder Maximo could have brought forth skilled attorneys to nod their wise heads and declare that the law indeed accorded with the Constitution and the best interests of all the people. The attorneys would have called forth knowledgeable experts in public health who would nod their sage heads and attest that this was, indeed, the more hygienic way to wear one's underwear, while in the background, chic fashion designers would applaud and testify that this was exactly the style the season called for. What happened though, was that the edict brought the realization to all of the individuals in the land that Il Lieder Maximo had gone over the edge. Now I know that according to your logic everyone should just have worn their underwear on the outside and no one would have felt any loss of dignity, experienced any embarrassment. I, on the other hand, feel that being compelled to take sexual harassment training is much like compelling me to wear my underwear on the outside of my clothes, and I don’t really care if everyone else is doing it too.

    Now you might suspect that I am simply one of those wild-eyed kooks who stir up trouble among the masses and, thankfully, there are not too many of them out there, or perhaps you think I am simply being arrogant. Arrogance is when you think yourself above the law and flout it. It is not arrogance to challenge the law openly if you think it wrong, as I have done. In any case, following my essay below, I present for your inspection a sampling of 14 letters (e mails) that I received (among a great many) from fellow wild-eyed kooks. You should look at them carefully, because all, except no.14, were written by women. These are women who do understand that my protest has little to do with sexual harassment and much to do with individual dignity. I can't resist including no.14, even though it is from a man. I have removed all the names from these to protect the innocent, but I will tell you that no.14 is from a professor emeritus (that means very old) at one of the largest campuses in the great state of California. I include that one to illustrate just how bizarre, almost grotesque, this foolishness can become. "I felt her arm". Can you imagine his humiliation?

    Best Regards from a fellow merchant in the marketplace of ideas,

    Alex McPherson

    Manhattan Institute - mindingthecampus.com
    The University of California raised no objection in 2004 when the California Assembly passed a law, AB1825, mandating that every employer of more than 50 persons provide sexual harassment training for all of its employees. Since then, I was occasionally advised that I was not in compliance with the law, and told to go with the flow like everybody else. I was warned that my supervisory and teaching responsibilities at UCI would be taken away if I did not comply.
    I ignored the edict and the coercion, but also stated clearly that I was refusing to comply deliberately. I refused, on the basis of conscience and principle. I further made it explicit that they should consider my refusal an act of civil disobedience and offered to go to jail, but I would not be bullied into taking their training. Six weeks ago the University became more aggressive in the matter and informed me that supervisory responsibilities over my laboratory and students were to be turned over to other University officials and faculty. I continued to refuse to take sexual harassment training, and do so now.
    A reasonable question is why am I so steadfast on this issue. Why not simply take the training and be done with it? First of all, the training is a ridiculous fraud. It is simple foolishness and an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Any claim that this training will discourage anyone intent on inflicting sexual harassment on a student or co-worker, or aid in alerting faculty to its presence, is sheer nonsense. Evidence that this sort of “training” has any meaningful effect on reducing sexual harassment is non existent. Here is how one (female) colleague described the experience:
    …. the whole on-line training is a joke. You go through the questions, hit any answer,then spend time away from the computer and hit finish about 2 to 3 hours
    later. You don't have to get a single answer correct to pass. You can
    also get one of your students to do it for you, once your have logged on.
    If the training process is so inane, why does the University pursue it with such determination? And let us remember that the University is doing this at the long suffering taxpayer’s considerable expense. First, there is a powerful political/cultural interest group promoting this disgraceful process, and second, it relieves the University of liability in sexual harassment lawsuits.
    I made a public statement that “This edict is an offense to my sensibilities, it calls into question my character, my reputation, and my intelligence”. This perspective was shared, echoed, and amplified by many people across the country, including particularly academics, judging by the letters of support that I received. About 25% of these were from women who correctly see this conflict as having little to do with sexual harassment and much to do with civil liberties and the sanctity of the individual. The comments were rich with words like “demeaning, oppressive, politically driven, dictatorial, indoctrination”. They were characterized by phrases such as “unctuous twaddle”, “sanctimonious halfwits”, “loutish intimidation”, and “trampling over human dignity”. Was I being too sensitive? The letters convinced me otherwise.
    In my opinion, imposition of training bearing a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The University has already nullified the right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. They have threatened my livelihood, and ultimately my position at the University. This, for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at UC 30 years ago. Can the University now terminate any tenured faculty by simply contriving an arbitrary requirement with which a professor finds it unconscionable to comply?
    I sought to find a reasonable means to resolve the impasse that had developed between myself and UCI. I proposed the following; I would take the training if the University would provide me with a brief, written statement absolving me of any suspicion, guilt or complicity regarding sexual harassment now, or at any time during my 30 year tenure at UC. I wanted any possible stigma removed from the training experience. The statement I requested is as follows:
    The University of California, Irvine acknowledges that the sexual harassment training required of Professor McPherson by the State of California is a requirement for his continued employment at the University, and a condition he will fulfill only under protest. Fulfilling this requirement in no way implies, suggests, or indicates that the University currently has any reason to believe that Professor McPherson has ever sexually harassed any student, or any person under his supervision during his 30 year career with the University of California.
    The University refused to provide any such statement. This raises the question, Why not? The statement is completely innocuous and unobjectionable, and the University should have been willing to write it for any faculty member whose record is as free of stain as is my own. Their reply was again that if I didn’t comply with the law then I would be placed on unpaid leave. A simple and straightforward compromise was offered that would have resolved the problem entirely, and it was bluntly put aside.
    The state, through the University, is invoking the issue of sexual harassment training to advance a particular political/cultural agenda. It is literally using the University, its faculty, and its students as political tools. Sexual harassment is a politically charged issue. The people of California have granted no authority to the state to impose narrow political and cultural proclivities on individual citizens. The disagreement between myself and the University has, I believe, broader implications. It is a question of personal freedom and civil liberties. I like to recall the words born by an ancient American flag that predated Old Glory. They warned, “Don’t Tread on Me”. Perhaps it is time for those concerned with the freedom of the individual to resurrect that flag.

    Letters:
    1.
    Dr. McPherson,
    My husband and I have read about your plight with UCI over your attending sexual harassment training. We respect your position and support you.
    Our son attended UCI and graduated in 2006. We have donated to UCI in the past.
    If you feel that you need funds in order to defend your position please let us know.
    Our contribution would not be large but it may help.
    2.
    Dear Professor McPherson:
    I just read an article about your refusal to undergo a sexual harassment training class and I felt compelled to write to you in support of your position. Kudos to you for not kowtowing to this inane policy and subjecting yourself to what you correctly called a "sham" course. I wish more professors, not to mention people in general, had backbones like yours!
    3.
    Dr. McPherson -
    Just a quick note to let you know that I applaud the stance you are taking on the UC-Irvine sexual harassment training. My husband and a colleague's reputations were recently decimated as a result of a sham sexual harassment and hostile environment charge. Fortunately, they are doing very well in thier own consulting business now, but their psychological states will never be the same as a result of over 3.5 years of emotional torture.
    More attention MUST be paid to the misuse of the sexual harassment and hostile environment laws. Too many good people - especially in academia - are being mobbed in the name of sexual harassment and hostile environments. Your calling attention to the sham training that is a direct result of the inmates running the asylum and the warden running scared, is one very positive step in highlighting the numerous major flaws in this system.
    Thank you again for standing up for your belieefs. Please know that there are many of us out here who whole-heartedly support you.
    4.
    I applaud your stand on not attending sexual harassment training. Thanks for taking a stand against such nonsense. More people need to follow your lead.
    5.
    Thank you, thank you, thank you for standing up against the Sexual Harassment training. I am so sick and tired of every time something happens in this country the innocent are punished with more laws and in this case, training!! I am a middle school teacher in Nevada and am sick and tired of all the "training films" I have to view. You are my hero for sticking up to them and you are from California which makes it doubly impressive! I didn't think there were people like you in CA. lol..
    Keep up the good work! You are an inspiration!
    6.
    Sir,
    I applaud your principled stand. I was quit my job rather than submit to a similar class. It's not easy, and chances are no matter what happens to you nothing will change. But you offered them a very reasonable option with the disclaimer and they are now just throwing their weight around.
    7.
    Dear Prof. McPherson:
    HELLO! Hope you are well and strong!
    Keep up the good fight!
    You have many more supporters than you may know. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Where liberty dwells, there is my country."
    Thank you!
    8.
    Dear Dr. McPherson,
    I read the article about you in the OC Register, via the blog Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/07/uci-professor-defies-law-on-awareness-training/)
    “I have consistently refused to take such training on the grounds that the adoption of the requirement was a naked political act by the state that offended my sensibilities, violated my rights as a tenured professor, impugned my character and cast a shadow of suspicion on my reputation and career,” McPherson said. "I consider my refusal an act of civil disobedience. I even offered to go to jail if the university persisted in persecuting me for my refusal. We Scots are very stubborn in matters of this sort.”
    and I would like to say, "Bravo, Dr. McPherson!"
    Best wishes to you, sir.
    9.
    Dear Alex McPherson,
    I came across your situation online & read your e-mail to your dean:
    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/uci
    I am a retiree from UC… where I directed our campus's oral history program for 30 years. In the early 80s it was all the fashion to hire expensive "trainers," at $50K+ a pop, to run all-day sexual harrassment and "ethnic diversity sessions." Although at that time it was not legally mandated, it was made quite clear that participation was not optional.
    So all of the staff of ……. Library met in a big conference room, perhaps 125 of us, for an 8 am to 5 pm "ethnic sensitivity training," which consisted of so-called "encounter group dynamics," small-group "sharing," and such drivel to rid us of our "racism."
    I arrived at 8 am, filled with rage. The trainer gave her politically correct introduction and asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand, in front of that large group, including my supervisor and the University Librarian and let it all out. I was actually shaking with both rage and fear, imagining reprisals but also relishing this opportunity to confront this hypocritical, sham exercise in group think. Of course the UL was getting lots of brownie points with the Chancellor for initiating this BS.
    I let it all hang out, and said that I felt I was being coerced to participate in this quasi, faux "therapy" session that violated my personal space and values, and as an adult I felt insulted and opposed to this sort of childish piece of theater. I really got into it. I am not usually as demonstrative as I was that morning. The trainer was truly shocked and so was everyone else in the room. You could truly hear a pin drop.
    After hearing me out, the trainer invited me to leave if I felt "uncomfortable." I left, filled with relief and joy. In the next week two of my colleagues quietly let me know that they respected my response.
    My supervisor was appalled as were others.
    I think what you are doing is wonderful as UCI herds all these faculty and staff into this absurd McCarthyite joke.
    Also, on another note, I am a licensed psychotherapist and knew at the time that these sorts of "trainings" have absolutely NO validity in affecting genuine change vis-a-vis racism or sexual harrassment. The empirical data is about zip. As far as I am concerned, and I have read a lot about it, this "industry" is filled with unlicensed, free-lancers, so-called "experts" in these areas, a bunch of HR types, with a political agenda and incompetence. Many were alumni of the misguided "human potential movement" which thrived in the 70s. Actually, snake-oil types. They're like those motivational speakers one sees on late-night teevee, charlatans. . .
    Onward,
    10.
    Hi Alex -
    There have been a few times that the information about the sexual harrassment classes at UCI flitted across my computer. To me, a sign that I needed to send you this email.
    I've been in Human Resources for a long time and around the early 80s was when the harrassment charges started to break through, streaking into the chaotic, idiotic and near ridiculous situation that we're in now.
    Primarily, it seemed that men could no longer tell a woman that she looked nice, or if something in the business world called for celebration the trend was getting to be 'hands off and stand back." Who could hug anymore?
    People are nuts and they've taken all these things so far out of whack, in the real world and in business, that I think it's truly silly.
    If I may, there's a tenuously fine line between flirting, friendly and harrassment and it all depends on how much you like the other person.
    Take the class. It gives a cushion of protection.
    All the best
    11.
    Dear Professor McPherson:
    I was interested to read in the newspaper that you have refused sexual harassment prevention training. As a fellow Scot and retired employee of the University of California, I applaud your stand.
    I myself made written protests at mandatory training on various subjects to do with ethics and morals since my own were not in question.
    I wish you well and hope that other faculty and staff will join the protest.

    12.
    I don't know if the Dean can do what he threatens or not, but the whole
    on-line training is a joke. You go through the questions, hit any answer,
    then spend time away from the computer and hit finish about 2 to 3 hours
    later. You don't have to get a single answer correct to pass. You can
    also get one of your students to do it for you, once your have logged on.
    I know it is the principle of the matter, but it will take less time to go
    through the training than it will to complain.

    13.
    Dear Professor McPherson,
    We thank you for your boldness in refusing to undergo sexual harassment training! We presume that it is true that your reputation and character are sound. It is obvious that your career is productive with millions in research money being generated by you.
    I, too, have Scot background and appreciate your grounds for not attending such training courses. My hope is that changes can be made in this requirement by your action.
    Respecting your boldness.
    14.
    Dear Dr. McPherson,
    I read the article in The Orange County Register on your resistance to the AB1825 sham and submit to you a hearty, Bravo!
    While at …………… State, no one explained why but all faculty were required to take "sensitivity training." We were commanded to pair with a professor of the opposite sex. Then we were commanded to feel each other. I refused on the grounds that as a married man I had no intention of feeling any woman except my wife. I was forced to feel the woman's arm or face disciplinary action. I felt her arm.
    Does it strike you as illogical that we are commanded to feel women who are strangers, then laws are passed making it illegal?
    Like you, I should have refused. Such nonsense only serves to convince us that the originators are likely daft or worse.
    Bravo for doing what I should have done.
    Best wishes.