The Board of Regents of the University of California is considering whether to adopt an amendment to the Faculty Code of Conduct outlawing romantic relationships between faculty and students. The amendment would apply to lecturers, instructors, and graduate teaching assistants as well as to professors, and it would specifically prohibit faculty members from becoming involved in relationships with students for whom they either have professional responsibility or for whom they expect to be responsible in the future. Such an amendment has been on the table at UC for some time now; the recent renewal of interest in a dating ban owes much to last fall's scandal at Berkeley's law school, when the dean resigned after an anonymous former student accused him of inappropriate sexual conduct toward her (you can read extensive coverage and commentary on the Boalt scandal in Critical Mass' December and January archives). The UC Academic Council adopted the amendment in April. Now all that is needed for it to be adopted by the entire UC system is the Regents' approval. The money quote comes from UCSB's Sexual Harassment Prevention Education Coordinator Judy Guillermo-Newton: "The problem I see is that we are trying to change the culture," she said. "The question is, can we do this by law?"

Please forgive me for once again confirming my dinosaur status, but I can remember when the emphasis at places likely Berkeley was precisely the opposite... the leftist faculty wanted to save the great unwashed from the disease of being "middle class and hung-up."

The same progression took place in Woodstock, NY, where I own a summer home. It was really a fun place in 1973. The emphasis really was on music and a good time. Slowly, the hippies turned into evangelicals. Then in the late 80s, the feminist morals cops took command. What ensued was a comic (and often tragic) nosedive into grim puritanism. My little home town in Illinois began to seem like a cat house in comparison. Woodstock has been consumed now for 20 years with one sex or abuse panic after another. Every woman in town is a rape victim. We doubled the police force to protect them as they walked through town, dodging the rapists hiding in the alleys. Every divorce or breakup was accompanied by a march to the DA's office for the ritual accusation of molestation.

The left is now truly insane with this puritanical fit. I'd like to say that it is funny, but it is not. It's frightening. The end-game has yet to be played. I do not see a pleasant resolution.

The "money quote" turns my stomach. Unfortunately, that is the prevailing way of thinking at Berkeley: legislate into utopia.

My point of view continues to be that banning romantic relationships between professors and those with whom they have, or expect to have, a professional relationship is simply the overdue adoption of a standard that has been applied, in various ways, in most other professional fields, including medicine, counseling, and the clergy, and an ethos that is reflected in policies covering many non-professional work environments. The reason so many other fields have such standards is that otherwise too many important decisions are made on the wrong basis.

It's interesting that posts on this development seem to be interspersed among posts about some prof who has a popular class (sounds to me like what we used to call a "gut" course; i.e., one that requires little effort) on sex. The biggest issue here is that the folks making hay out of protesting it are obscuring the legitimate question (raised by some in comments) of whether this is in fact an appropriate use of university resources, considering its relationship to other programs common in the academic environment like condom parties and the like.

I would disagree with Erin's definition of McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was a Johnny-come-lately who in fact had indifferent success trying to capitalize on Richard Nixon's rise to prominence based on correct, if inesthetic, accusations against Alger Hiss. Nixon and others, like J.Edgar Hoover, were unpleasant people who nevertheless raised important issues regarding how far we should go in tolerating leftist involvement with Stalinist-sponsored espionage activities. By the time McCarthy arrived, the important work of those like Nixon and Hoover had been done -- McCarthy the alcoholic wannabe discredited himself and, to a lesser extent, the legitimate cause of identifying Stalinist attempts to manipulate US politics and culture.

It is simply a foolish and incorrect cultural tendency to regard universities, and by extension professors, as wise sex therapists who will cure us of our puritantical hangups. Clear standards of sexual conduct for professors with students must be established; at some later point we should be requiring standards of good taste in classroom and other university-sponsored activities. The damage done by "McCarthyist" wannabes is to discredit the necessary objectives in reforming academic culture.

"Every woman in town is a rape victim." LOL, Stephen!

As for the money quote - it's really a money question -- and the answer is No, you can't keep people's hands off of each other with punitive laws.

On the other hand, once the university system passes the rule, they ought to bring Wagle on board to enforce it. She needs a job worthy of her energies.

This isn't a clear-cut issue by any means. All I can contribute in a short space is that academic administrators want to have it both ways, on issues of personal freedom: When we say it's a business (and the students are its customers), they protest that it's a school. When we say it's a school, they protest that it's a business. Their treatment of their "mission" and their "role" is entirely dependent upon what they want to accomplish within the scope of a certain debate.

Alan Kor's previous comments on this issue say it all. This is not an attempt to create a "professional environment." It's an attempt to control people's personal lives and the incentive behind this is the feminist obsession with power relationships:

"People confuse the issue of voluntary good judgment with coercive administrative control of adults' private and intimate lives. Students and faculty have found love, affinity, success in assortative mating, comfort, and satisfaction with each other for centuries, although Abelard paid a steep price. College and university students above the age of consent are free to make what lawful choices they wish in their lives, and laws---including university regulations---should be kept off their bodies. Administrations worry about preference and "the sanctity of the classroom" in matters sexual, but almost never worry about grades being given on the basis of ideological or political conclusion, about the professor who grades being the professor who invites students to political demonstrations, or about a grade inflation in the humanities that leaves students in the sciences penalized by the rigor of their choices. Further, the current system of student evaluations leads to inappropriate grading by professors desperate for high approval as they approach tenure. It is the politicization of sexuality by the "caste system" theorists that truly motivates the crocodile tears shed over the alleged consequences of voluntary relationships between consenting adults at a university. Further, the merest reflection on human nature would conclude---alas---that the worst routine inflation of grades occurs as courtship (even if only if the professor's mind) rather than as reward for consummation. Again, the issue is profesionalism and judgment, which can be addressed openly among colleagues. We do not need the awful regulation of voluntary adult sexuality, let alone the awful attempt to regulate adult love."

John Bruce is absolutely right on McCarthy. The left has been making a good living off his ghost for the last 50 years. How come its ok for leftist Berekley feminists to demand oversight of what goes on between profs and students but when Sen Wagle asks the same question (what's going on between Dailey and his students in the classroom?) she's some kind of rube from Wichita?

John Bruce,

You say you disagree with my definition of McCarthyism. But I have not defined it. What I did do was quote, in an indented blockquote, in a different blog entry, a Kansas history professor's opportunistic use of the McCarthyist label. My own sentiments about his use of that label as a political lightning rod were clearly stated. I think you are actually disagreeing with the history prof, not with me.

To Stephen, darn right it's an attempt to "control people's personal lives." If a police officer is fired for having sex with an arrestee, that's also an attempt to control his personal life. If a doctor is decertified for having sex with a patient, or abusing prescription drugs that he can obtain, that's also an attempt to control his personal life.

The fact is that society is generally acknowledged to have the power to control personal lives in certain areas. The extent of the control depends on the political process and clearly has changed over time, as the effort to eliminate sodomy laws attests. The nature of the political process is that bedfellows may be strange (play on words intended). If radical feminists and mainstream anti-idiotarians agree as to social policy in certain areas, this does not discredit the particular remedies being proposed. Those remedies will be adopted or modified or rejected as part of the political and semi-political processes operating as part of the debate. That is what's happening here.

Erin, it seems to me that my misinterpretation of your opinions on the block quote was easy to make. You said, in introducing it, "Meanwhile University of Kansas history professor Jeffrey Moran, author of a history of sex education, has published a piece in the Topeka Capital-Journal that interprets Susan Wagle's campaign against Dailey and his course as part of the longer history of the religious right's bid for political power[.]"

Now if I quote passages of Milton's Areopagitica discussing issues related to academic freedom, in a post relating to academic freedom, and don't introduce any qualifying opinions, I think it may safely be assumed that I agree with Milton's Areopagitica and in fact am citing it in support of my opinions. It may be an error to claim that a definition Milton makes is my definition (I'll go that far), but I don't think it would be an error to assume I strongly agree with Milton and approve of his arguments, unless I've made it clear that I don't.

So I still think it would be safe for the reader to assume you essentially agree with the definition of McCarthyism in the quote you supply, whether you feel some other remark made elsewhere qualifies it. You may wish to add some type of additional clarifiction on your views if this isn't correct.

Erin, I also note that below the block quote in question, you say, without other qualification, "read the whole thing." This, I would submit, has become a standard expression of wholehearted approval in the blogosphere -- ref. Glenn Reynolds's frequent use of the exhortation in connection with James Lileks. I think "read the whole thing" is as close to unqualified endorsement as you can get in this medium. So I would suggest that, in light of the generally negative reactions to the quote in the comments, you may be wishing you had not said quite what you did, or didn't.

John, I agree and disagree. No, the identity of the proponents of law doesn't necessarily discredit the proposed policy. Yes, that identity does tell us a lot about the motivations of those who are pushing that policy. However, I think that we must answer a few very pointed questions whenever we introduce policy that prohibits behaviors:

1. Does the purported problem exist?

2. Will the policy cure the purported problem?

3. What are the unintended and unforseen consequences of that policy?

4. Will the policy be enforceable or will it simply engender contempt for the agency that attempts to enforce it?

I think that this proposed policy fails on all counts. First, there is no problem. The notion that such a problem exists was manufactured in a staged controversy. In fact, I'd suggest that the problem was manufactured out of ideology, rather than out of necessity. Second, I doubt that this policy will cure the purported problem. In fact, it may be counterproductive. Nothing makes sex quite as attractive as attempting to outlaw it, and the leftists who've proposed this policy would be the first to point this out in relation to attempts to control sexuality outside the university environment.

The law of unintended consequences is gonna be a doozy here. I won't attempt to predict.

And, yes, the attempted enforcement of this law is pretty likely to result in an avalanche of contempt for the agency that attempts to enforce it.

This policy is an answer in search of a problem.

The proposed ban is living, if indirect, proof of the ongoing vitality of Cole Porter's expression "even educated fleas do it."

Banning an act is an elixir that demonstrably and exponentially increases the pleasure one gains in undertaking the now illicit action.

It is on behalf and clebration of that inexorable principle that I publicly extend my gratitude to the executive committee of my place of business. You have made my life here far more pleasurable.

Wishing that a similar elixir awaits one and all as the week-end begins I remain your honorable and obedient servant,

P. Stolypin.

First, a proposal for a legal remedy to the question of standards for sexual conduct in the academic field is a fringe idea, for the simple reason that in general, the professional standards that circumscribe such conduct do not have the force of law, and they don't need it to be effective.

To answer Stephen's points: (1) the purported problem, which is the influence of sexual conduct with students by academic professionals on decisions they make about students (or others for which they may have a professional responsibility) absolutely does exist. I have seen it, or its alleged existence and effects, many times, including situations in which the granting of academic awards, tenure-track jobs, and tenure occurred in circumstances that called the objectivity of the decisions into question.

The case that started the brouhaha at Berkeley was a situation where faculty was diddling law students. The behavior occurs. It causes problems. I think we would be incredibly blind or naive to insist that it does not occur, or problems of objectivity in grading, awards, hiring, incentives, and tenure do not result.

(2) As I've said many times, other professions, and other non-professional work environments have equivalent policies, and if they are not perfect, we do know that in cases where violations are caught and proven, the individuals are removed from circumstances where they can continue to corrupt important processes due to conflict of interest. This would include doctors or psychiatrists diddling patients; policemen diddling informers or arrestees; managers diddlign subordinates; army sergeants or officers diddling subordinates or their spouses, etc. etc.

All concerned have some reasonable assurance that a police officer can't pull them over and expect sex instead of a speeding ticket; a shrink can't say you'll get better if you'll let me help you this way with your sexual hangups; a boss can't say what you need for your career is my kind of mentoring, etc. etc. These problems exist, and they are kept at a manageable level by the expectation that violations of professional standards or clear policies will have repercussions.

(3) We have had equivalent policies in other fields for (in medicine) ever since Hippocrates; certainly in many other cases for decades or generations. The legal or administrative controls involved appear to have minimized the possibility of false accusations. The fact is that doctors do diddle their patients, policemen do try to get sex from people they've pulled over, etc. etc. Standards of probable cause and proof appear to work acceptably in other fields and result in minimizing the problems they are meant to control.

(4) The policies appear to be effectively enforced in other fields. State medical boards do get cases of doctors having sex with patients. I chatted once with my own doctor, who was called as a witness by such a board to testify that diddling a patient was in fact not a recognized cure for her disease. His attitude was disappointment that such testimony would be needed, but relief that channels existed for removing such people from practice. I think this is the general opinion when clergy, attorneys, counselors, police, and those in many other fields must be disciplined for violating professional standards in these areas. The rules are in fact enforceable and routinely enforced.

I simply do not see why some feel academics should be an exception -- why is diddling your professor a growth experience, while diddling your shrink is simply exploitation?

Good analysis, John, and some good points.

Still think I disagree, but I'll think about it over the weekend.

Have a great weekend.

I agree with John Bruce, and I want to add 2 points:

If a professor and a student have a completely consensual, nonexploitive, and discreet relationship, no one is going to know about it and nothing will be done. The rule needs to exist so the book can be thrown at people when necessary.

Also, while I think it should certainly be against the rules for a professor to suggest that a student have sex with him if she wants an "A", I'd like to see the students have enough backbone to reject the suggestion emphatically enough to prevent a repeat, and then go on their way without feeling traumatized by the encounter.

"If a professor and a student have a completely consensual, nonexploitive, and discreet relationship, no one is going to know about it and nothing will be done."

Not during the relationship, anyway. But if they break up, having that rule on the books can be a pretty effective blackmailing tool.

Agreed. So can rumor. One of the peculiarities of academic life is the intensity of its rumor mill. Rumors of illicit relationships between faculty and students far exceed in number actual illicit relationships between faculty and students. Generating such rumors is in my experience a favorite hobby of undergrads, grad students, and even faculty. Such rumors are damaging enough in environments where faculty-student relationships are not expressly forbidden. They can be career-ending in environments where such prohibitions do exist. Heightening the sense of taboo that surrounds such relationships will necessarily heighten the thrill of spreading rumor and innuendo about who might be doing what with whom. It will also convert malicious gossip into a very definite form of institutional power.

That's why I said "discreet".

One might think that it's impossible for such an affair to remain entirely secret but I suspect that that does happen once in a while.

It seems to me that gossip and rumor are a part of human nature generally and not just of the academic world. Certainly rumors of liaisons abound in the business world -- who can say in what proportion to reality? However, let's establish two points.

First, a liaison between two people that can involve a professional or business conflict of interest is a problem, every bit as much as a bribe or some other type of conspiracy.

Second, even though rumors and gossip dog other professions, and even though allegations of sexual harassment can end careers in fields other than academics, corporation, law firms, medical boards, and so forth, have been able to investigate allegations and respect the rights of the individuals involved. When the allegations prove out as a result of investigations, the appropriate remedies are taken. This should be considered a positive, as would any other measure to minimize corruption -- which in fact is what this is.

The idea that the process of bringing accusations can be abused has, of course, been used in the past to discount the need to prosecute crimes like rape. More recently, it has been used to discount the need to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. The fact that someone will go to great lengths to interpret an innocent comment as "harassment", for instance, is not a reason to discount the need to bring to account someone who pinches females in the office. The investigative and administrative processes exist to separate the frivolous from the serious charges. It may be that universities aren't yet equipped to handle such issues, but this isn't a reason to avoid dealing with them.

It occurs to me that rumors in the academic world thrive in part due to conditions that will need to be addressed anyway to clean up other problems.

A big issue concerning my alma mater, and likely other universities that have taken hits in their endowment income, is transparancy in the budget process. The last several issues of The Dartmouth Review (www.dartreview.com) have covered the apparent unwillingness of the administration to make public the amounts it is budgeting for controversial and less-essential programs, when it's closing libraries and laying off staff. The administration won't disclose, for instance, how much it's spending on Dartmouth's version of condom festivals, apparently for fear that someone might ask why such-and-such a program has been cut, but the banana parties are still on.

The consensus seems to be that transparency of the sort that any municipal government or public corporation would take for granted can't be managed at a university, because it would limit the power of individual administrators to run things as they see fit.

Principles of transparency and accountability, of course, have been central to Western society at least since the Enlightenment -- at least, outside of academics.

Now, in a business situation, if there is a rumor that VP A has been mentoring clerk B a little too intimately, you can be sure it will go to the Human Resources and Legal departments pretty quickly, and either A and B will have their circumstances change perceptibly, or the rumor will die down. Thus does transparency work in such a case.

In the academic world, if the Chair of Graduate Studies has been assisting Grad Student C a little too assiduously, the rumor festers and festers, and morale goes to the potty while they watch C get the Wowie Fellowship for next year, and has an inside track to be the next Assistant Prof hired. Doesn't make any difference if there's anything to the rumor or not, because nothing will be done about it in either case.

Not good. Things won't go this way forever, folks.

People who "pinch females in the office" should be "brought to account"? If this attitude ever prevails in the United States, I'm moving to Italy, where I can get my ass pinched in peace.

purcell, offices really aren't the appropriate venue for butt-pinching. There's a time and a place. Work ain't it.

Purcell's post suggests he isn't aware that butt pinching has been out of favor in US workplaces for quite some time. In post work environments, doing it once would result in a very serious talking-to -- when you think about it, an uninvited butt-pinch these days could be construed as sexual assault, and the recipient, depending on the circumstances, could take serious action. It has been some decades since I even remotely considered doing such a thing, which makes me wonder where purcell gets his ideas of what's appropriate.

My wife comments, however, that if purcell moves to Italy, it is likely that unless he strongly resembles Marcello Mastroianni and can bring a pinch off with true style, the consequences of doing such a thing even there might be even more dire and much more immediate. So I am wondering if there's an alternative universe out there that purcell is posting from.

Rereading purcell's comment, I note that purcell appears to wish for his or her own rear to be pinched in Italy -- I may have purcell's gender wrong, perhaps subconsciously assuming his/her first name might be henry. However, if purcell wishes to go someplace where harassment is approved, why stop with Italy? Iran's an even likelier place!!

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Purcell's comment was made with tongue planted firmly in [his own] cheek.

Having said that, the comment does point out a critical distinction between an unwanted unilateral act (pretty much the textbook definition of sexual harassment) and a consensual relationship that happens to originate in the workplace.

No one will ever be able to legislate sex out of the workplace whether on campus, at a law firm, a factory, or anywhere else. When you throw people together for extended periods of time - shit will happen. Further, the more time one spends at work, on campus etc, the less time they have to develop outside relationships. When you combine natural physiological needs with a narrow universe of potential partners - you are going to get relationships - no matter what any code or rule says. At the same time the fact that a relationship originates at the workplace does not condone people acting out their relationships at work. As Laura so correctly stated - there is a time and a place for everything.

As noted by others above, the power disparity implicit in teacher/student, lawyer/staff, foreman/floor worker does complicate and may skew the already complicated relationship between two people. That disparity does cause me concern and that concern has guided my own conduct, albeit without the benefit of a formal rule and notwithstanding my previous comment on this subject.

Student/teacher relationships are particularly skewed. The teacher is older, is an authority figure, has the power of ‘the grade’, and probably has been through the relationship mills more and is more experienced in the mechanics of relationships. (The same is quite true of senior partners and young associates at law firms.) It is for those reasons that I understand the concern colleges have about condoning or turning a blind eye to those relationships. Of course, once a professor is no longer teaching that student - some of the power disparity evaporates. As noted, no policy will eliminate these types of encounters. On the other hand a written policy may cause people to think a bit more about the consequences of those relationships - and a bit more thought may actually benefit all concerned.

Last, I do not see this issue as one that cuts cleanly across a left/right ideological divide. I understand the idea of the emerging puritanical left - but I think the essence of this debate is the potentially deleterious impact of sexual relations that crosses the ‘power-fault lines’ inherent in any workplace.

There are two issues here, that are being fuzzed over. One is workplace relationships, consensual or not. These are, at this point, fairly well circumscribed by sexual harassment law and company policies that in large part are meant to forestall sexual harassment complaints and lawsuits. My understanding of current sexual harassment law is (I am told) that there is a "one sweetie rule", which says in effect that the boss can have ONE consensual relationship, but you get more than one, you're starting to give the impression that sex is expected as a condition of employment (bad thing). Companies are then free to have policies that keep things from even getting close to lawsuits or complaints; e.g., NO relationships between managers and subordinates, consensual or not. The company is then expected, of course, to enforce such policies equitably and consistently. And there you are.

However, a professor-student relationship is not a workplace relationship. The law currently does not cover this area clearly, especially as teaching assistants so far are not considered employees from a legal standpoint. This may be one reason why an individual was quoted in Erin's original post asking basically why the law can't be made to cover this situation, if in fact it does cover workplace relationships.

I think the reasonable answer here is that if universities don't move to provide protection for students from conduct that in the workplace would be considered sexual harassment, the law will in fact inevitably move in.

If you look at the facts involved in the case that started the Berkeley brouhaha from which this series of posts arose, I think you could argue that female law students were in a situation where they might constructively have been expected to go out and get drunk with the profs, and thus find themselves in situations where they might find themselves getting groped by the profs in a drunken stupor. Not to engage in this conduct could be regarded as lack of interest in the subject, and thus could result in a less than optimal grade. I think a creative attorney could discover a tort in the existing facts -- stolypin?

John, I cannot speak in the capacity as a 'creative' attorney (I'll leave the adjectives pro or con to my clients or my adversaries.) I can attest though that yes the atmospeherics you describe would assist in the creation of a complaint that would or should be sufficiently well crafted to survive a motion to dismiss.

Given the highly sensitive nature of these complaints and the politically charged atmosphere they create in academia or the corporate world - defeating a motion to dismiss often lays the groundwork for negotiations leading to substantial settlement payouts.

I do agre with your assessment of the importance of these atmospherics. Taking that point a step further, I believe a University legal advisors would assert (or should) that written no-dating policies are just as much, if not entirely, designed to insulate the University from potential liability for the individual conduct of a professor as it is designed to prevent successfully the conduct or to pass moral judgment on that conduct.

In other words, the written policy would be used to rebut the argument that the atmospherics you describe is expected of students or sanctioned by the University. A professor (or exectuive) acting alone in violation of explicit policy to the contrary is not as big a litigation dollar risk to a University (or corporation) as a professor/executive acting in the absence of guidleines.

This is one reason why I believe these policies are not as ideologically driven as one might expect - I think it is risk management assessment.

As to the one sweetie rule, my understanding [caveat - My primary focus is on international affairs not affairs of the heart. I have handled a couple of these incidents but would not in any way profess a great depth in this area) is that it refers to asking someone out. You get one shot (since harassment is defined as an unwelcome advance) at asking a subordinate out. If he/she says no - and you drop the matter - no harm no foul. If, after the initial 'no', you continue to persist you run the risk of being 'credited' with either sexual harassment or creating a hostile work environment.

BUT, if a corporation (or presumably a university) had such a policy and did not enforce it consistently, it would not be insulating itself from the likelihood of a complaint or lawsuit. As a practical matter (it is my understanding from a close relative who does specialize in such matters), a corporation (or presumably a university with such a policy) MUST investigate any report of a violation of such a policy, at least as it applies in a workplace sexual harassment situation. You can't just say "we have a policy against such things, Smith was acting without authority when he diddled those eighteen clerks who worked for him."

Simply asking someone out is not a violation of sexual harassment law, though it may be a violation of a corporate policy designed to prevent having things get to a bad point. The "one sweetie rule" does, as I understand it from the same close relative, apply to consensual affairs in a work environment. The atmospherics, in other words, have to be pretty serious to reach the level of sexual harassment. The level of reckless behavior by those who violate it does, however, certainly exist -- I've seen it more than once.

John:

Gotta go back to the beginning.

I don't think that any showing of strong reason to adopt this policy has been demonstrated. I certainly respect your personal experience, and I do believe that you have seen the love relationships between faculty and staff you describe, but this personal experience does not sufficiently call for a new policy.

The impetus for this policy is, I repeat, what seems to be a staged event by a committed feminist who probably wanted to institute such a policy even before the staged incident. There's a strong element of a Reichstag fire at work here.

It's interesting that I am experiencing attention at work from a woman I'd just as soon not know. I loathe the very concept of "sexual harassment" because it encourages official intrusion into our personal lives. I've been in the workforce for 40 years, and I've never witnessed a serious problem with "ass pinching." It was never happening. I don't know what to do about the unwanted attention I'm getting, but my first inclination is to try to settle it personally.

I think that we are all overlooking what we will lose if the office becomes an even more icy environment with even more people threatening administrative action and lawsuits. The workplace was more friendly and more pleasant before this crap began, and I never saw anything in the office that justified the crusade to begin with.

The sexual harassment crusade was launched by committed Marxist feminists. You'll think I'm a little nuts here, but their objective was to sow anger and hatred between men and women because that enhances their ability to grab power. Don't give them any more power. Ignore them. Tell them to go away and mind their own business.

I couldn't differ more on this. Just for starters, if sexual harassment was launched by fringe radical faminists to gain power, umm -- how come they're still on the fringe?

You may not have seen pinching, but a close relative has had to investigate and determine disposition of a case of a manager who went around snapping bras, and continued to do so even after being warned not to. I've personally witnessed the reckless conduct and self-destruction of several managers who used the office environment to have multiple affairs with subordinates. This may be a difference between the big city and the midwest, but don't assume that because you haven't seen something, it doesn't happen. I suspect that the pressure of even worse penalties from sexual harassment law forced the companies involved to deal with these problems by terminating the managers -- and this was a correct course. None of these situations was "political correctness" -- it was the need to ensure a work environment that concentrated on work.

Policies that eliminate such problems simply allow folks to do their work. I've never had a problem saying "good morning" to a female colleague; clearly times have changed to the point that certain kinds of jokes don't get told at the office. Not sure if this is so bad, either -- in many ways it's a reminder of the Golden Rule.

It's worth pointing out that within three generations, or a single lifetime, we've moved from a situation where (in the testimony of a woman who grew up in the early part of the century) "nice girls didn't work in offices" to a situation where we're mostly gender-blind in hiring and a business career for a woman is completely acceptable. Changes in sexual mores and gender-related assuptions have had to take place quickly in that context, and human nature seems to have made it necessary for the law to set guidelines.

I have some concern that your post is attributing a little too much influence to shadowy, radical Marxist feminists here.

I work in the biggest city in American -- NYC. The radical Marxist feminist we're talking about here isn't a shadowy figure. It's a real woman at UC Berkeley. And feminists are not on the fringes at Boalt. That school has been described by its own members as "a feminist paradise."

I disagree with almost every point you've made, so much so that it would take too much time to respond. The conceit that prior to the feminist era women did not work is just that. I grew up in the small town midwest and almost all women worked, just like the men, at crappy, dangerous jobs in factories, shops and farms. The feminist history of work is a fiction. My mother was plowing the bottom 40 on a John Deere when she was 14. It wasn't until I went to college that I met the soft, suburban women who were and are the cadre of feminism.

This subject is setting off your chivalry gland. Having been involved in men's issues groups, I've seen this dynamic millions of times. Some woman somewhere has issued a complaint. And, now you've mounted your white horse to save the damsel in distress. Feminists have played men like a ukelele with this. Men can always be relied upon to respond.

We've been setting public policy, and creating law in this knee-jerk fashion for 40 years. It's time to stop, take a breath, and determine if there really is a need for policy and law. Just because some woman somewhere complains, or because your personal experience suggests that a complaint is possible is a downright bad reason for creating policy or law.

So, turn off the chivalry gland for a moment, and think about this. The faculty at Boalt hasn't thought this through either. I guarantee you that in the future we will see this policy used by a Christian, traditional woman who is being sexually harassed by a feminist, lesbian law professor. To quote my wife (who is a sage): "The reason why women are so obsessed with sexual harassment is that they are so prone to commit it."

I've gone through two circumstances at work in the past year that could have been called sexual harassment. In both instances, the women approached me and I just couldn't shake them. A weird process goes on in women's minds about this. They think: "I'm really cute and interesting and nice. I know he's interested in me." And since women work in an odd way, they soon convinced themselves that I was the one who initiated the relationship... in fact, I was at fault! I've handled both of these situations face-to-face and I'm glad I did.

I'll say it one more time. Jennifer Reich (do I have the name right?) staged an incident to force the enactment of a policy she favored before the incident took place. There was no national outcry for such a policy. The need for it was invented by feminists who want to further sow discord and hatred between men and women. They see this as a hammer for driving the nail deeper.

Well, I may have an overactive chivalry gland, but I'm listening to accounts by someone who went to college and grad school c.1970, which places said person in late middle age, who, as he puts it, can't shake the chicks. But he's never seen anything that could be construed as sexual harassemnt; that's just a Berkeley myth from the Marxist feminists, who -- not sure if I have this right -- are also sending the ugly chicks to pester this guy in his 50s as part of their power agenda. Or something. (Not sure why he is raising the issue of his apparent irresistibility otherwise.) I do need to see about my chivalry gland; it may be all that stands between me and legions of mendacious hotties.

It sounds to me as if the faculy at Boalt, and UC in general, is acting, as stolypin points out, very reasonably. A written policy that's enforced, where none previously existed, would serve to insulate UC from wildly unfounded allegations, frivolous lawsuits from Marxist feminists and freelance mendacious hotties, and the like. And indeed, there the matter will stop -- if no prof has ever traded a grade for a roll in the hay, or groped an inebriated law student, then the feminist Marxists will go elsewhere to foster conspiracies. Or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.

"The best government is the least government."

Laws and policy should not be enacted simply because it seems like a really good idea. Laws and policy are always tradeoffs, with somebody winning and somebody losing.

So, while it seems to you an unarguable good that this policy should be enacted, I repeat that there is no independent evidence to support the passage of such a policy. To the contrary, what we have here is a staged incident designed to force an emotional reaction guaranteed to insure the passage of that policy.

And, at the end of your statement, you mention the only valid reason for enacting this policy... the avoidance of lawsuit. This, even, can lead to a bad end. My firm is a huge cash cow and a new lawsuit walks in the door every day. I won't tell you how, because it would take too long, but the end game of this is coming into play, and that end game will be massive job loss. Ultimately, the best way to insulate any corporation or university is to get rid of the people who are causing the problem.

The technology is coming on line to get rid of people from the office environment, or to sanitize their interactions in environments in which every action and word is recorded.

And what gets lost is... freedom. Remember that concept? And this loss is difficult to quantify.

I wanted to respond to the other part of John's comments -- the middle aged guy who can't push away the chicks issue.

First, I want to tell you that young women are attracted to older men. One of the greatest feminist lies is that this attraction is solely an attraction to power. Women love older men because we are mature, more experienced, and we won't take the crap that young men will take. This is an aphrodisiac. Women are completely fed up with the pushover, sensitive man. I'm also a public performer, a professional musician, and women absolutely love that.

Second, I'm going to tell you that the phenomenon I'm describing to you is the result of feminism. NYC has an army of women over 35 who will be lucky to ever speak one-on-one with a man again, and most of them are hetero and many of them are pretty. The desparation of these women is something to behold.

35 years of defamatory talk about men produced a result that I never thought I would see... men in NYC have walked away from women in staggering numbers. This is the work of feminism. The feminist women thought they could go on with the bad mouthing forever, and that there would never be a payback. They were wrong. Men have also realized that marriage is no guarantee that they will stay married or that they will continue to have access to their children. Women can take those things away with an accusation. I once thought men were too stupid to figure this out. But, they did.

So, yes, there are tradeoffs. Feminism drove a wedge of hatred between men and women, and the casualties are all those women who face a life alone. Marxists have always employed the same tactics. Hatred and chaos are fertile grounds for those seeking to seize power. Those girls at Boalt are operating on this principle.

It sounds to me, though, that what's really needed is policy or legislation to stop aggressive women in the workplace. The problem is, as you state in your penultimate post above, that women are obsessed with sex and are the ones who actually commit harassment.

So why not a policy against all these women coming around and snapping the elastic on your briefs, asking how big it is, all that stuff? Sounds like that's what we really need here.

Might be an idea. The problem is, I've never seen this problem, but I've seen the other one, with the guys snapping the elastic and making the comment, a lot. The political process at the moment is being driven by lots of folks who, whether instigated by Berkeley Marxist feminists who are doing this so Big Sister can take over, appear to support the overall methods and objectives involved in mainstream sexual harassment law and related policies.

So why not go more public with your outlook? Cite the hotties who try to make it look like you came on to them as examples?

No, I will not, because I have sympathy for them, and because the proper way to deal with this is one-on-one.

The first was my boss until she left a year ago. Like many women in NYC, she was enticed into the life of the fag hag by feminist indoctrination. As is almost always the case, the fag hag life runs out at 35 or above. The gay men don't want the fag hag after that. The reasons for this are complex, and I'll relate them to you only upon request. My boss was a pretty young thing, but the men wouldn't have anything to do with her because of the feminist trash talk. She doomed herself at the office via a method that astonished me. She went on vacations several times and returned to announce that she had finally met the man she was going to marry. Each time, this relationship turned out to be a fantasy. After several repetitions, she was so discredited at the office that she had little choice but to leave.

The choice I made to deal with her attraction to me was to talk openly with her about it. I won't give you the details, unless you want them, but I think that this is the most human method.

The second woman was much harder to deal with because she was full of the hippie, feminist, Marxist cant, and she just didn't seem to notice that I didn't want to hear it and didn't find her fascinating for belching it out. I just sent her an e-mail this morning that reads in full: "I'd prefer to limit our interactions to firm business." Whether this will do the trick or not, I don't know.

In both instances, I bear no real ill will against these women. I have no desire to embarass them or drive them out of a job. In the second instance, I easily could have done so because the woman had no sense at all about what she said in e-mails.

No policy is needed. Sensible individuals can handle these issues with compassion without the intervention of management or the police.

[The money quote comes from UCSB's Sexual Harassment Prevention Education Coordinator Judy Guillermo-Newton: ...]

I hope this is not her full-time job; but you never know.

"If you look at the facts involved in the case that started the Berkeley brouhaha from which this series of posts arose, I think you could argue that female law students were in a situation where they might constructively have been expected to go out and get drunk with the profs, and thus find themselves in situations where they might find themselves getting groped by the profs in a drunken stupor. Not to engage in this conduct could be regarded as lack of interest in the subject, and thus could result in a less than optimal grade."

Nah. As one you attended Boalt a mere three years before Jennifer Reisch did, I can assure you that no one there is expected to party with his/her profs. In all but a few informal seminars, it's not even an option. Besides, Boalt grades blind, so there is no way for a student to improve his grade even by legitimately showing interest in the subject, let alone by getting drunk and being groped by the instructor.