From Iowa's sexual harassment policy, which covers student-student interactions and not just employment:
Sexual harassment occurs when somebody says or does something sexually related that you don’t want them to say or do, regardless of who it is. For example:It's not clear whether the last quoted sentence modifies the definition that I quote at the outset, but even if it does, consider how strikingly broad this rule is, both from its text and from the examples given:* Talking about their sexual experiences.
* Asking you to talk about yours.
* Telling sexual jokes, innuendoes, and stories, or comments (about your clothes or body, or someone else’s)....Sexual Harassers
Sexual harassers can include (but aren’t limited to) professors, teaching assistants, research assistants, supervisors, co-workers, classmates, other students, acquaintances, friends, partners, dates, and strangers....
What makes someone a sexual harasser isn’t based on what they do for a living, their status as a high profile person, or where they hang out. What makes someone a sexual harasser is behavior, (including words and actions) that uses sex to be disrespectful, hurtful, embarrassing, humiliating, intimidating or frightening to you or another person....
Examples Red Flags / Harassing Behavior ...* Somebody puts up sexually graphic posters, magazines, screensavers, web pages, and/or emails where you can see them....
So (as is usual) sexual harassment is not defined to include solely behavior targeted at the complainant. Nor is it limited to behavior in class or in university workplaces (where of course the professor and the supervisors may rightly constrain speech).
Rather, it deliberately covers any place and context in the university. If someone puts up a sexually themed cartoon on his dorm room door (either "sexually graphic" or presumably including "sexual joke[s]," from the first quote), that's a "red flag[] / harassing behavior." Likewise, when someone tells a sexual joke in a cafeteria to his friends at your table (even if the last sentence of the first quote is part of the definition, assume the sexual joke is disrespectful to its subject, say Britney Spears), and you hear it but you don't want to hear it, that's sexual harassment, and apparently a university disciplinary matter. Likewise if he talks about his sexual experiences in a way that's embarrassing to some other person, and you overhear (again, assume you're sitting at the table with the people he's talking to). And this at a university, where 18-to-21-year-olds live, socialize, and have sex with each other. Oy.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (which passed along the pointer to the page) points out that there's also another, much narrower, definition elsewhere in Iowa's materials. But, as FIRE points out, "students at the University of Iowa are now forced to guess -- under threat of punishment -- which definition the university will choose to enforce." That's hardly proper in any circumstances, but especially when one of the definitions is so laughably broad.
I used to spend a lot of time there, using the library. You can't park in a visitor lot and walk into a building without seeing a flyer or a T-shirt that includes "sexual jokes, innuendoes and stories, or comments" or talk about sexual experiences, and a lot of those flyers were for activities sponsored by university-approved groups.
Or am I wrong? Could one make a facial challenge to this sort of policy?
Well, I suspect they *are* limited to those.
So if I don't want this girl I have a crush on to sleep with the Quarterback, and she does, then she's sexually harassed me?
Without a sanction, this is basically a long-winded plea for people not to tell dirty stories to people who may not want to hear them.
SSD is right. This policy actually promotes date-rape by making it risky to engage in discussions about sexual boundaries that might avert unwanted touching and penetration -- because it treats even necessary discussions are "unwelcome" verbal "conduct" of a sexual nature.
It may also violate freedom of intimate association by interfering in dating relationships to an unjustifiable extent. See Wilson v. Taylor (11th Cir. 1984) (freedom of intimate association covers dating); Louisiana Debating &Literary Ass'n v. New Orleans (5th Cir. 1994) (freedom of intimate association trumped antidiscrimination ordinance).
I mentioned the exercise to the professor I worked under (I was a JD/MBA student). I quickly learned that she had written the policy. I received a stern lecture on the subject. I was sure I would be fired. After I assured her that I also stressed the damage sexual harassment can do and pointed out to the students that the policy would be enforced without regard to the issues we were discussing, her tone and redness shifted down a little. Of course, I never mentioned it to her again. I continued to teach as I always had, and thankfully, no one ever complained.
On a point mentioned above, the second link, which is the detail of the policy, includes penalties, up to, and including expulsion. The policy has teeth, long and sharp ones.
university to their own students: you have no right to go to school here despite paying absorbent tuition...do whatever we say and accept whatever decision we make.
in my undergrad school (U of MD College Park) there was a guy who was 'prosecuted' for harassment of such a kind. the girl herself did not even complain (nor did she say anything accusatory at the "hearing". all the evidence was hearsay from third parities (of course allowed).
they called the police..which tore him out of his bed at night and yelled at him. the prosecutor put it on a stet docket (he was charged with MD crim CODE § 3-803. Harassment.now dismissed) and got a restraining order.
before the 'hearing' (read: tribunal with no rules of evidence and no exclusionary rule)...the school put him on 'interim suspension'. (kinda like a pretrial disposition)
According to the school's own rules..he was supposed to get the interim suspention reviewed within 5 days. (part 18 of the code..see below) Instead..it took him 2 months...he got mandatory W's on his transcript.
after the 2 months..the univ VP of student affairs relaized it had no case for interim suspension and put him back on campus. He still had to go through the formal hearing however (the actual trial like)
at the trial the self righteous "hearing board" re suspended him (unanimously of course). The charges and evidence they decided to bring him changed 2 days prior to trial.
The SAME VP then overruled that decision on the merits..and reinstated him.
he still has
1. permanant W's
2. a restrinag order
3. no tution remission for the 'interim suspension' period
4. his education and earning power delayed by 6 months.
hes being represented by a dc firm. (after lots of prodding from me)
during this whole thing i read through the Univ's Code Of student conduct's most ridiculous provisions: (the code is found at http://www.president.umd.edu/policies/docs/v100b.pdf)
2. we don't need to follow our own procedure-if we don't..you can complain...but there is no penalty for us wither way. (part 8 ANNOTATION 9
yep this is all ok for them-at least form a legal standpoint. (the U of MD is exempted from the administrative procedure act in our state)
also as it says in annotation 9:
9. The Supreme Court has recently rejected the theory that state schools are bound
by principles of federal administrative law requiring agencies to follow their own
regulations. Board of Curators, University of Missouri v. Horowitz 55 L.Ed 2d
124, 136. See, generally, “Violation by Agencies of Their Own Regulations” 87
Harvard Law Review 629 (1974).
but from a policy standpoint? how much money do we spend a year deciding who to admit our universties? how much has been written on the fairness and possible corruption of the process.
what about who we throw out of our universities?
not that they don't have to for other reasons
So, in order to fully comply with this policy, a student must either: (a) completely refrain from any sexual thought, conduct (such as ogling a callipygian coed), or speech, except in complete privacy; or (b) be endowed with the power to read the minds of everyone in sight or earshot, in order to determine whether or not anyone might not like what they are about to say or do. Sounds like the recipe for a rather barren college existence. I think life at a monastery would be more arousing. If Iowa has a policy of encouraging diversity, apparently human beings (or at least those who have not been neutered) are not included in that policy.
I think the best way to kill this insane PC-gone mad is to insist upon strict enforcement. Islam students should insist that every female student, faculty member, or staff member be required to wear a Burkha. Insist that all female athletes wear baggy clothes that completely cover all bare skin below the neck. Male Students and faculty must button all shirts to the adam's apple to prevent any display of chest hair. Cheerleaders must be prohibited at all athletic contests. No films above a P rating can be shown anywhere on campus (even PG films can include racy language and innuendo) [sorry, forgot that we can't use the term "innuendo", as it might be construed by someone as a sexual double entendre], and even consensual displays of affection or sexual attraction must be prohibited in any public location on campus. If the Dean is seen on campus kissing his own wife, file a complaint and insist that he be fired.
Also, a state university may be bound by state administrative law. Some know this fact, but blatantly ignore it.
what about u of md- i think they do have some exemptions-good point about the contract reason to follow their own regs (i knew there was another reason why they had to)
-i think the first amendment talk is a little premature-after all-even state schools arnt establishing 'law' prohibiting certian sppeech...they are really just doing it as a contractual agreement thats part of going to school there-you dont have to go to school there-and if you dont-you dont have to agree to the terms
its like-you dont have to go into the bar-but if you do there is a contractual agreeemnt for you to consent to be searched.
its also like-you dont have to settle a case-but if you do..one provision of the settlement may be that you dont talk to people aboutthe amount settled for
plus-private schools need not worry about this at all..and some private schools (like duke) are the main villians
Heck, if you took this seriously, it prevents you from watching late-night television, because the monologue might include a Bill Clinton or Lindsay Lohan joke.
George Weiss, what makes you think a university liberal like me thinks this is anything but nutty?
that is tired typical and stupid straw man arugment:
ok-your a libreal who think this is nutty
you want a medal?
i never said that ALL liberals did anyone also anything at all
it was obviously ageneralization about the liberal dominated univ rhetoric toward their gov and the liberal dominated anti due process stuff
im sure youve also made politacal generalization about 'librals' or conserrvatives in your life
get over it
As a UI alum, check writing parent and resident of the state of Iowa, what should I do about this? (1) Write a letter to the Dean inquiring about it. (2) Write a letter to the Attorney General inquiring about his evaluation of its legality and constitutionality. (3) Other. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Silly question: Does "another person" exclude the speaker, or can the speaker be charged with sexual harassment for recounting the previous evening in a self-deprecating manner?
In other words, it refers to sex in the sense of what some people call "gender," not in the sense of sexual activity.
If you throw rocks through the windows of women's dorm rooms because they're women's dorm rooms, there's no sex involved, but it's sexual harassment. (Also a crime, but that's another story.)
i dont know much about iowa or u of iowa
i would suggest contacting the university policy making body that made that policy (which is probly a mix of students and facualty) at u of md it was called the university senate (which is put in place by our university board of regents..which gives the u senate its authority)
thats probably your best bet..youll probably have to find the right committee in the policy making body....try to talk to the chair of the committee
i also like your idea of talking to the state attorney general. check the opinions of your state attorney general online before you do though.
i wouldnt bother with a letter to the dean..unless you have all the time in the world..he/she probly wont care
In the mean time, they are true hypocrites. No two ways about it.
Want to prove me wrong? Let's see a university president call for true locker room equality. And keep ol' Larry Summers in mind.