CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Lucky and sexual harassment
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: James Elliott <j_c_elliott>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:14:12 -0500
Sorry, I sent this out too soon. Let me expand on this if y'all don't mind:
Maybe so, but that IS what we were told. Oh, and by the way, if we raised objections in the course, we were quickly 'put in our place' by the presenter, who was a very astute woman, an expert in sexual harassment cases. I think the objective of the session was to intimidate the new employees from making ANY sort of trouble.
I had one class, a three day workshop (not only sexuality, but racial and feminist sensitivity topics), sponsored by Leon County, where the presenters, all from various minority groups, made no secret that all the ills of society were caused by 'white males', whether in positions of power or not. (If you were a white male in that workshop, believe me, you were made an example! It was very uncomfortable!) If any of the males in the group, white or minority, tried to present our opinions, we were told,
"since you don't have a background where your group was discriminated against, you don't have a voice.' They called it 'being disrecpectful of others experiences'.
If you haven't been to one of these workshops lately, I'd suggest you go to one. It's quite an experience. I've learned one important fact from these: when attending, sit down, shut up, and nod your head in agreement A LOT.
Jim
> >From: "Hastings, Waller" <hastingw at northern.edu>
> >To: "James Elliott"
> ><j_c_elliott at msn.com>, <BudNotBuddy at aol.com>, <ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu>
> >Subject: RE: [CCBC-Net] Lucky and sexual harassment
> >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:49 -0600
> >
> >
> > If you were told in your sexual harassment course that any
> >statement that a member of the opposite sex takes issue with is
> >harassment, you were told wrong. I've had to deal with a couple of these
> >in my position as union head. The charges stick when the behavior is
> >repeated, almost never when they are isolated. Except for the most
> >egregious approaches (e.g., "If you don't sleep with me, you won't get
> >this promotion" or "Hey, baby, want to ---"), the standard is usually to
> >look for a pattern of behavior.
Received on Mon 19 Feb 2007 02:14:12 PM CST
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:14:12 -0500
Sorry, I sent this out too soon. Let me expand on this if y'all don't mind:
Maybe so, but that IS what we were told. Oh, and by the way, if we raised objections in the course, we were quickly 'put in our place' by the presenter, who was a very astute woman, an expert in sexual harassment cases. I think the objective of the session was to intimidate the new employees from making ANY sort of trouble.
I had one class, a three day workshop (not only sexuality, but racial and feminist sensitivity topics), sponsored by Leon County, where the presenters, all from various minority groups, made no secret that all the ills of society were caused by 'white males', whether in positions of power or not. (If you were a white male in that workshop, believe me, you were made an example! It was very uncomfortable!) If any of the males in the group, white or minority, tried to present our opinions, we were told,
"since you don't have a background where your group was discriminated against, you don't have a voice.' They called it 'being disrecpectful of others experiences'.
If you haven't been to one of these workshops lately, I'd suggest you go to one. It's quite an experience. I've learned one important fact from these: when attending, sit down, shut up, and nod your head in agreement A LOT.
Jim
> >From: "Hastings, Waller" <hastingw at northern.edu>
> >To: "James Elliott"
> ><j_c_elliott at msn.com>, <BudNotBuddy at aol.com>, <ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu>
> >Subject: RE: [CCBC-Net] Lucky and sexual harassment
> >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:49 -0600
> >
> >
> > If you were told in your sexual harassment course that any
> >statement that a member of the opposite sex takes issue with is
> >harassment, you were told wrong. I've had to deal with a couple of these
> >in my position as union head. The charges stick when the behavior is
> >repeated, almost never when they are isolated. Except for the most
> >egregious approaches (e.g., "If you don't sleep with me, you won't get
> >this promotion" or "Hey, baby, want to ---"), the standard is usually to
> >look for a pattern of behavior.
Received on Mon 19 Feb 2007 02:14:12 PM CST
